Alaskan ice ignores global warming

Posted by: satguru

Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Nov 07 2008 09:38 AM

This year has already shown a reverse in the trend of shrinking glaciers and snow coverage of Alaska, possibly the first official US Geological survey data not to fit their preferred model.
Bruce Molnia, in charge of glacier research, says
"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance,"

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/555283.html
Another interesting point is the Alaskan glaciers had been retreating from 'natural causes' for over 200 years. Hardly connected with the industrial revolution.
Is this the first official crack in the system? I can tell you one thing, it's not likely to be heard on the regular news channels as it doesn't fit their official format so you've got to rely on the internet.
Posted by: PaulDrake

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Nov 07 2008 05:01 PM

I really respect what you're doing but it's close to a hopeless cause now. Obama is the President elect and we here in the US better prepare to pay thru the nose to freeze. Politics have trumped science in a big way. Truth no longer matters.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Nov 07 2008 07:39 PM

Well I don't overestimate the power of the internet but I do believe in the power of the truth. Now if people could measure the climate and its effects as easily as they could see the clouds in the sky none of this performance could ever have happened. But the scientists can and are currently divided in three groups. Those who apparently believe the official line, those that don't but are paid not to speak out, and the few who do. If there are ways such as the link I gave, endorsed by the very organisation employed with others to promote the fiction then sooner or later these cracks must appear when the promised disaster simply doesn't happen.

How people have been taken in at all by threats of uncertain possibilities mainly beyond our lifetimes literally frightens me. The general acceptance of authority in the total absence of any genuine evidence means if they want to invent weapons of mass destruction or melting glaciers they can. How many people can a) visit a glacier b)see it melting and c) compare it to every other one in the world plus how they were in the last 100 years? And no other items are any easier to know than that. So the smoke and mirrors and tax collection continues, along with the discredited (trust me here) nuclear plants which few would have accepted without such a perfect reason.

But if everyone takes the little effort to look at the freely available scientific sites (eg Philip Stott, Nils-Axel Morner, Piers Corbyn etc) they can easily see how many apparent facts stand only by their lack of public contradiction. I'll never give up on this one however small my voice is, as if everyone in posession of the truth simply gave up through lack of power then it would be the end of democracy.
Posted by: PaulDrake

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Nov 08 2008 10:24 AM

You're preaching to the choir. I will continue to read what you have to offer. In the meantime I'll believe that the only way to turn the gullible public around is harsh evidence to the contrary. That would be a few severe winters in a row. The kind we had here in North America in the period from 1976-85. Back when many of the very same people were trumpeting the dawn of a new Ice Age.
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Nov 08 2008 01:38 PM

I live between Matanuska Glacier and Worthington Glacier and have been on both. Worthington has definitely receded in the 16 years I've lived in Alaska.

I realize I am not knowledgeable enough to know the truth on this controversial issue, and I believe most people suffer the same disadvantage. What bothers me, like you, is that the politics involved distorts the truth.

A close personal friend with a geology degree from Yale is convinced humans have almost no measureable effect on the earth's climate. Baloo55th here at FT believes the same. But, who knows?

Humans definitely affect the environment, as we see in air and water and now soil pollution.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Nov 08 2008 05:29 PM

Qp, if everyone did like you and many others and used your intuition on these matters, like if something quacks like a duck, this could never have got as far as it has, but can still be stopped before we are all riding horses and carts. Science is purely reliant on observation and following theory, and when they found both an observation few could easily challenge, and a theory that channelled billions to a few at the top they had a winning formula. The fact we are literally still recovering from the ice age would mean temperatures were expected to increase regardless, but possibly when they found we had destroyed the ozone layer then it could have opened up the idea we could do a lot more.

There is a site only for scientists to understand that explains comprehensively how CO2 cannot trap heat in current conditions but not one they would like to be simplified for everyone else. And many studies show it always increases after the temperature not vice versa but again that would ruin their whole goldmine.

David Icke always says simple knowledge of the truth will dissolve any falsehood and it's all out there but the converts don't want to see it as it goes against their certainty of belief.
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Nov 08 2008 10:41 PM

I'd be interested in your understanding of the ozone hole, David.

My geologist friend and I are devout, right-wing Christians, which translates in many people's minds to "ignorant bigots." I always appreciate finding individuals like you and Baloo who aren't devout, right-wing Christians, but share some of the same scientific ideas.

Between the two, I'd prefer to be considered cynical rather than gullible, but naturally consider myself to be neither, but simply reasonable.
Posted by: poneke

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Nov 09 2008 02:30 AM

I'm following along here also Sat;

I think what is increasingly bothering me about all this 'Global Warming' malarkey is that we are being led away from those things we can change. Namely how we mis/use the earth's natural resources for profit.

Issues of sustainability have taken a back-seat to the new industry of carbon-trading.(for example)
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Nov 09 2008 08:20 AM

Absolutely Poneke. There is only so much money there for aid and development, and while it's being wasted on 'climate change', which is as dangerous as my cat was to human beings and the earth, malaria, raw sewage, chemical pollution, aids and any other number of genuine, immediate and worthy causes are losing out.

The ozone layer seemed to me to be a fairly straightforward cause and effect. It was very fast, the atmosphere was torn apart by powerful artificial chemicals (unlike CO2 which we'd die without) and as a result it let UV light through. You only needed one satellite scan to show the damage and was easy to follow. Many people assumed this also caused global warming (some still think it's connected) which was never the case. But when we stoppped using the chemicals the ozone started to return.

Compare that with future predictions with wide variations between nothing and quite a lot for temperature, with sea level routinely being kept quiet as actually it isn't really doing much. The complexity of both present climate influences and effects the overall picture is almost impossible to present or interpret in relation to the present, let alone the future when we are supposed to be working for. A pig in a poke was never a way to do business but that is what they are trying to sell us. Well not me.
Posted by: tnrees

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Nov 20 2008 07:33 AM

Apparently russian roulet is quite safe with a well oiled gun - the weight of the bullet means it never ends up under the hammer.
With our present knowlege of the climate mechanism the climate gun might be empty as the global warming deniers claim or it might have 5 chambers full & never been cleaned since it was broght back from world war II.
I think we should play safe & assume that we are causing dangerous warming until it is pretty conclusively proved otherwise.
It is not just Alaska in Ecuador this March the snow line was unusualy low.
Posted by: jordandog

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Nov 20 2008 09:05 AM

There has been a week long expose from different parts of the world running on the Today Show here in the U.S. One was focused on a climb up Mt. Kilimanjaro. It is difficult to argue with the fact that the glaciers present 22 years ago are nonexistent now. Or the fact that the people are suffering, along with animals and crops, because they have no water. Natural cycle, global warming, I don't know, but it is happening and that cannot be disputed.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Nov 20 2008 01:17 PM

Well they just had a feature they filmed a few weeks ago on the news about polar bears, and had to edit in a new bit after showing how they were stranded, as within a week the sea had frozen again. Ice, snow and weather conditions in general react incredibly quickly, and what stands today can change in a week. In fact the glaciers were reported to be freezing very quickly in the weekend Telegraph, and is very misleading when they quote temporary changes as if they are long term.

The sea level however is the last and slowest to react, and that is creeping up in levels that will inundate London possibly after it has been vacated by humans altogether. Certainly nearer the thousands than hundreds of years anyway. The islands in the South Pacific as well as our own east coast are sinking, and as already just above sea level will inevitably go below it eventually at its current one. The sea level has crept up for centuries and the whole Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves would need to melt to raise it to a significant level, and that is not possible for centuries as the physics don't allow it.

There is an honest glacier watch site that gives a far truer picture. What counts is both total coverage and seasonal comparisons, not individual changes. What melts on one side is usually growing on the other, but that doesn't fit 'the message'. Agencies are actively discouraged not to release balanced figures as when the public see the huge holes in their illusion it will gradually drop its support. But with the internet you can easily look at the findings placed the news reporters prefer not to include. It's tragic that reporting can be so one sided, but not for the first or last time.

I have absolutely no idea why this site would falsify the figures, they are simply presenting information only available with the right surveying equipment most of us do not have access to and 'rely' on the media to present. Luckily this week one paper did report this (they at least shouldn't be questioned compared to independent sites) so is not one man's fiction. growing glaciers I am forced to use a pun here, if you keep looking for more data, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Sorry...
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Nov 25 2008 06:12 PM

I have more 'spies' helping worldwide, and one in Australia just told me about a couple of articles on The Australian newspaper which quote the NASA Aqua satellite finding, sent up in 2002 to study atmospheric water vapour and precipitation.

Basically the computer modellers expected CO2 increases to gradually create some sort of 'electric blanket' over the earth, eventually heating us up to such proportions what wasn't flooded would become a desert. According to George Monbiot anyway. Then they actually went up and tested it with a real measurement. What it found (back in March) was as CO2 increased, water vapour decreased (a much more effective greenhouse gas) and cancelled the effects, ending up more or less even. None of the authorities questioned this but god forbid anyone besides a single paper reported it, so it took me 8 months to dig it up and post it here.

I've linked a Yahoo answers page as it questions the findings in detail, translates them to English, and gives the actual paper publishing the results which is linked but very heavy going.

Aqua findings

The summary goes, these findings basically reverse the expectations of meterologists about CO2 effects in the atmposphere (as I read elsewhere already), and rather than deal with projections we now have the facts. It also mentions that had the projections been correct then the warming trend that began in the 70s or so wouldn't have stopped and plateaued in 1998 but continued to rise. But it turns out the moderates were right. Our climate has so many self-correcting mechanisms our little (100 ppm extra) CO2 contribution is not sending the atmosphere into chaos but being absorbed by plants and other parts of the atmosphere to wipe out any assumed effects.

Now the frightening part is that despite this extremely official finding, none of the policy makers seem to have taken a blind bit of notice of it. It's like carrying on wearing flowers to ward off the plague when they've found out it's spread by rat fleas. But the holes are appearing in the illusion as was inevitable, lets hope the reaction to them gets around sooner or later as well.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Dec 06 2008 12:17 PM

I will continue to update this thread as more data continues to turn up.

The latest discovery is that besides plant growth increasing with added CO2 (and as a result also absorbing it back from the atmosphere) it also means they use less water. So Al Gore's talk of desertification if CO2 increases has just had another hole shot in its heart. We really need to look at what is happening than what could or we'll all miss the ball.
Posted by: lauralaura84

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Dec 06 2008 06:23 PM

I have read many articles on global warming, ranging from those which are adamant that pollution created (ultimately) by humans is to blame to others highlighting the fact that the Earth has naturally gone through various extreme temperature changes in its c. 4.5 billion year history.

I am often dismayed when I hear people say they don't bother to recycle, choose sustainable wood or try to reduce their consuption of fossil fuels as our impact upon global warming hasn't been conclusively confirmed. Even if we aren't contributing in any way to current climatic changes, we still have a responsibility to respect Earth, not only for future generations of human beings but to preserve and protect the wonderful array of flora and fauna with whom we inhabit our planet.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Dec 06 2008 07:08 PM

Absolutely. It's the very overlap with genuine issues of conservation they manage to sneak in their irrelevance about climate, as if they were all the same thing.

We recycle, stop pollution, preserve rain forests etc for their own sake. The climate looks after itself and we look after the planet, although without tough laws and enforcement of those laws raw sewage will continue to pour into seas and chemicals will keep coming out of third world factories just as they did here in the industrial revolution. But they are issues independently, and shifting them into the climate forum is a dishonest and deliberately confusing way the media try and promote a cause that will cost us £500 a year if the UK proposals become law. What we lose someone else will gain. They are the ones making us part with the money and have some very clever ways of persuading us to do so. It's only places like the internet that allow a free sharing of the actual data the media generally prefer to avoid.

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace existed decades before global warming hit the news in 1998, and before that we were all preparing for an ice age. Both have now been hijacked by the climate movement and totally lost their original purpose. Many genuine causes are now losing out as money is being put into 'carbon neutral' projects which have as much value as 'food neutral' meals. It's all a magic show and has no substance behind it.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jun 02 2010 11:26 AM

I've posted this in the chat board and this thread to make sure more people see it.

Article summary

A few days after the Royal Society were forced by 43 of their scientist members to soften their black and white stance on global warming, Newsweek have just published an article concluding that there is not enough evidence of the sensitivity of the climate to small increases in CO2 to be certain it is effective, the climate has cooled now for over a decade and as a result environmental action should not be taken for that cause but for its own benefit. It's like I've woken up in a parallel universe, as one of the largest proponents of the official view if they are now baling out I'd presume many will now follow.
Posted by: bloomsby

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jun 02 2010 02:25 PM

Here's a link to a BBC report on what has been going on in the Royal Society recently in connection with the issue of climate change:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm
Posted by: george48

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jun 02 2010 02:49 PM

CO2 is a trace gas comprising 0.039% of the atmosphere.
It just seems odd
that something
comprises so little
of the atmosphere
could have so much effect
on climate!Just saying..
I agree that Global Warming exists,
where i take issue with is that it
is man made,it seems arrogant that
we can change the climate worldwide.
It's funny that all these people
coming out of the woodwork as climate
experts.
It's like a botantist declaring themselves as an expert in neurosurgery.
Arrogant or what?
What really peeves me is the
brain time and money spent on a fools errand,
that could have been spent elsewhere
on other more tangible problems.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jun 02 2010 03:29 PM

Thanks Bloomsby- from what I gather there they're desperate to retain the old message in the new one despite actual events no longer supporting it. Why not just abandon the issue and divert our funds and efforts to things like real pollution by raw sewage, mercury and other chemicals, and wiping out malaria which is only dependent on the resources made available to it. If they can't bear to drop it then at least say what Newsweek have already concluded that there isn't enough certainty about the role of CO2 and would be negligent to throw even more money at it than they already have.

George, you see what so many do yet enough cannot so the momentum is maintained. A climatologist anonymously called the radio and let slip that the theory came about when an anomolous rise in temperatures was found which they couldn't explain, so assumed maybe as they couldn't trace it to anything else 'then it must be the extra CO2 in the atmosphere'. Now I don't think science begins and ends with assumptions, it wasn't even an observation, which it is supposed to begin with. The observation was the temperature had speeded up within the increase generally present since the end of the ice age. Human nature (especially scientists) hates a mystery, so instead of accepting the climate has swung drastically throughout the life of the planet quite happily, they had to know what was at the bottom of it 'because it was there'. All it took was for the first group to produce their theory and possibly get it peer reviewed (as many similar papers since have been published managing to avoid the process) before being accepted widely simply as it came from a respected source. The original professor who raised the possibility in theory was (no coincidence here) Al Gore's professor, and therefore he is only one step away from one of the original sources. Some time later the professor decided he was probably wrong, and Al Gore said he was senile and we should take no notice (remember Al Gore isn't actualy a scientist, so had absolutely zero status to condemn one himself who had clearly had the time to see his original theory fail).

I hope this marks the beginning of the end, the final phase of the panic and hysteria over something humans have lived with for many thousands of years, a changing climate. We've had nigh on ten years of throwing money at impossible technology, crazy ideas to pollute the ocean to make it absorb more CO2 and pump gas in the atmosphere to block its effects, and tripling the price of energy in the UK during a recession. I'm very disappointed the Newsweek story was published a week ago and hasn't been quoted anywhere in the other media. It may have been written by a single journalist but I'm sure it wasn't his story, it seems to be something which is representing a reaction by the whole organisation there to a change in circumstances. They could not have come to such conclusions without a very good reason, as unlike people on websites they are scrutinised and can lose a lot of status if lacking evidence for their change of heart. It's hard to trust anyone more than someone who has changed sides as it takes more evidence than anything else to do so.
Posted by: jonnowales

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jun 02 2010 04:13 PM

The amount of money used in the projects mentioned above by Sat could actually have gone to PROPER environmental protection and conservation projects. Maybe more people would be interested in an environment job (a very wide range of opportunities) if the pay wasn't, in general, so very bad in the non-AGW environmental sector. Instead of the money being spent combating AGW, it could have gone to making more jobs (as well as improving the pay of those jobs) in recycling, rural conservation, maintaining rivers and redeveloping lakes which have become barren due to eutrophication and so on...

Improves employment rates and the environment at the same time...as well as returning more money back to the Treasury in increased taxation. Maybe it is a dream world...but this is more like the environmental movement I would like to see, not the current one which seems to completely miss the point.

When the AGW scare comes to an end, I just wonder what the next environmental/health scare they will come up with will be.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jun 02 2010 05:00 PM

Quote:

When the AGW scare comes to an end, I just wonder what the next environmental/health scare they will come up with will be.




Funny you should mention that...

"Australian solar researcher Dr. David Archibald has shown that for every one year increase in the solar cycle length, there is a half-degree Celsius drop in the global temperature in the next cycle.

Using that relationship, we could expect a global temperature drop of one degree Fahrenheit by 2020. That alone would wipe out all of the warming of the last 150 years."

full article

Basically any future based story can be raised to attract funding, the fact it hasn't actually happened yet and probably never will is forgotten once the money's been handed over and spent.
Posted by: george48

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jun 02 2010 11:30 PM

<a onMouseOver="javascript:window.status='global warming';return true;" onMouseOut="javascript:window.status='';return true;" href="http://thebigsvc.info/?v=3%2E03&ss=global+warming">Global Warming</a>, like a lot
of pseudo science will be eventually
join other theories on the garbage heap
of history,but not before the tipping
point of scientists and other experts
is reached.
This tipping point will only be reached
when GW is discredited to the point
that most scientists and experts are
able to distance themselves by either
dismissing GW altogether or overstating the effect of GW,
or simply expounding that they were misled
and/or pressured to go with the crowd
and the flow of money.
There is too much ego at stake here
for this to go away quickly.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jun 03 2010 07:33 AM

It's tragic you and I (and Jonno and millions of other people I come across) can see this perfectly, yet the governments (ie the only ones who matter) keep going regardless. I honestly believe if Newsweek fall then others must follow as they were pretty well official spokesmen for the establishment, and if even they have decided it's a dead issue then they must be pretty sure.

It's also ridiculous we had at least one small party in our recent election who said they would remove all GW measures and most people probably didn't even know, let alone vote for them. I've heard the views of enough ordinary British people to know they reflected their views far more than any other but in the end people either simply didn't know or were too scared for the unknown. So in the end people vote for the executioners even though there are alternatives. But I'm quite optimistic about this one, it's a bit like a Christian accepting evolution or Hamas accepting Israel in comparison.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jun 10 2010 08:03 AM

A little lack of attention to detail by Prasad Menon, CEO of Indian giant Tata at the Deakins lectures on climate change this week:

"Australia needs to realise it's part of Asia. When it does, there will be change"

I think there'll be environmentalists all over the world now changing their atlases. Oy vay...
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jun 23 2010 06:34 PM

I am currently being taught physics by an old schoolfriend (PhD nuclear physics) and committed believer in global warming. He has provided the official NOAA link giving the IPCC view corresponding with Al Gore's film
Official global warming data

Normally in science accepted theories have little or no opposition, but the Petition Project, around 23,000 scientists who disagree there is enough data to prove man is responsible for changes in the climate have their own page presenting exactly the same data on temperature, ice, CO2 and solar activity and it's actually quite different.

Petition Project data

It's all quite simple to follow, and my conclusion having read both is if it's possible for equally qualified scientists to be able to produce differing figures for virtually every aspect of the climate, it implies the climate is far too complex to be measured, predicted and analysed more than the very basics.Just the opportunity to have such widely disputed sets of data on the identical areas rings alarm bells for me saying they simply don't know what's really happening so shouldn't make any statements until all that uncertainty has gone. If man was on trial and the jury only were given these then I believe none could convict beyond reasonable doubt yet in reality we are already guilty.
I was tempted to start a new thread just for this but decided one global warming thread is enough.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Jun 29 2010 07:41 AM

The BBC, Britain's mouthpiece for the global warming industry, showed a programme last night about the effects of skeptics and climate cheats on public opinion. Of course they said despite scientists being split on the effects on the climate of the human CO2, and Bjorn Lomborg explaining how a 30cm (that's a few inches I think, it meant nothing to me) increase in sea level in a century had zero effect last time so is likely to have zero effect next century, which was actually the only statement of commonsense I remember, the presenter did say (remember his script was probably not just written by the BBC but approved by the government) they weren't able to calculate the effects on changes in the major greenhouse gases (over 95%), water vapour and clouds. Hang on, as greenhouse gas causes a 33' cushion round the planet to stop it freezing like Mars, it is rather important for our survival.
And now he's just said they can't figure out changes in the heavy stuff while all agreed a tiny increase in a minor trace gas is guaranteed to produce chaos, albeit an unknown amount, doesn't quite look credible any more to me. How a single sentence can be spotted to derail a complete theory may have slipped past many people but write it down so people can see it and it can sink in. That couldn't have been a mistake or a throwaway comment, he said 'they don't know'. No source, no scientists to confirm it, but someone told him or he wouldn't have known. Are they maybe preparing us for something? A government shift possibly?

Panorama clip

I'm hoping I can find the lot on iPlayer and bookmark the sentence, and if so will edit it in later.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jun 30 2010 07:08 PM

I will continue to use this thread for updates on my own investigations if that's OK.

I've been shlepping all over the internet asking about the net greenhouse effect of man's CO2 contribution and learnt some more or less definitive equations. One site demonstrates the measurements including water vapour, the other explains how the different gases make up the total 33'C greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.
It says 60% is caused by water vapour, 20% CO2 and 20% other gases. CO2 at 20% of the effect is therefore around 6' of that, and 3% of that which man is said to produce is .2'. There are possible feedback loops where more sea evaporates increasing water vapour, but then clouds also increase which reflect heat, so probably not possible to factor in accurately if even effective.

Why, I hear everyone asking, would such a minute increase concern anyone? The answer is that apparently the climatologists calculating man made global warming treat the atmosphere as if there was no water vapour, increasing the effect of CO2 hundreds of times.
Greenhouse effect

Water vapour effects

I leave you to draw your own conclusions from this.
Posted by: tnrees

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jul 01 2010 05:53 AM

Even if human impact is small it could be the straw that broke the camels back.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jul 01 2010 02:13 PM

I'd like to see the actual odds on that, especially as the money spent trying to 'solve the problem' already has been maybe more than the actual potential problems themselves. And they've only just started. That money has to be taken from other projects and of course us. Rather an extreme and irreversible action on something even the enthusiasts say may well not occur till we're all not here to know about it. Is that a good risk or deal to make?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jul 22 2010 10:05 AM

I thought the death of global warming would come from a dying scientist who no longer had anything to lose and could contain their conscience no more. But while doing my normal searching around for data I found two quotes, one in 2007 from one of the heads of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University who supplies most data for the IPCC, and the other from the IPCC report iteslf.

Oddly enough besides a single report by Melanie Phillips of the first I came across no more mention of it before or since despite it confirming every suspicion I had myself that it's simply impossible to both pin down a single event on man made climate change, and further to pin down climate change on man at all. That is no longer David Satguru's opinion, but direct from the CRU. They have told us and we have not heard or listened. Then the IPCC report itself, solely reported in Nigel Lawson's book and almost impossible to locate elsewhere, had one massive revelation, again confirming my own suspicions, followed by a list of likely benefits from man made climate change. Now unlike the main statement the second is all over the net and on the front page of the report. I've never read anyone besides a few independent scientists mention this before as their own opinion, but never seen one report quoting it is official and straight from the IPCC.
The bottom line is that although the future temperature rise in the next 100 years us within a 1 (ie as before) to 6 degree rise, their own estimation of the impact of the worst possible result is instead of the world's standard of living rising about 9 times better than present it will only rise about 8 times higher. And that's the worst! It then went on to confirm my next theory, that all that will happen is existing problems- floods, droughts and storms would just move around to other places and possibly intensify, although would be compensated by opening up many new areas as habitable.

This means basically that if we do nothing then things will carry on as before as changes will be to a level impossible to notice, while all actions to try and prevent said result guarantee a lower standard of living as costs soar and freedoms decrease (they are just discussing power rationing in the UK and can be sure if one country does most will follow).

I will now return to Mike Hulme who I will quote directly about the actual known impact of man on the climate: He calls it 'Post-normal science', apparently required to deal with such an issue.

"Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs where the stakes are high, uncertainties large and decisions urgent, and where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken. It has been labelled ‘post-normal’ science…The danger of a ‘normal’ reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity."

This has indeed said that truth and science come second to policy and influence, and confirms it is impossible to pin down any climate effects on human influence. To think I've been trying to prove this for ten years and he's already told us in 2007. It's a pity our governments missed it as well as they continue their scare stories and taxes unabated. Maybe someone in the media needs to let the people know this and then maybe the governments will have to acknowledge it as well.

IPCC video clip
Post-normal science

edited to add links
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Aug 12 2010 08:45 AM

I have just been forwarded this link which demonstrates Lake Michigan's score for July was 14.5' higher than it actually was, raising US average temperatures by the equivalent amount officially. Now they've found the glitch it won't happen again but it could have been cropping up for months without question. It has been concluded that this would have either been the worst level of incompetence by University of Michigan or worse still a deliberate arrangement with the NOAA who compile the national figures to make sure they still increased. It also demonstrates (ie yet again) how incredibly easy it is to get nonsense figures used in the official data and unless discovered later on will remain as part of it. Frightening our whole government policies are based on such an attitude.

Lake Michigan figures

If some sharp reader hadn't captured this image we couldn't have seen it, as it was removed from their own website soon after the discovery.

I will add this to the fact the NOAA admitted in two parts that over 90% of US land weather stations produce inadequate figures mainly due to being in urban heat islands, yet continue to use them all for their figures. Part two was their justification for it (this is straight from an interview), "The details don't matter, only the general trend".
OK, well I won't worry about that then. How about my tax bills then?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Aug 19 2010 08:33 AM

It didn't take long for more, the same NOAA who publish the most official set of climate figures for the world have been caught yet again. Last week it was discovered one of their satellites in use since 2000 had been reading 10-15 degrees high, and they kept using it for an unknown period and added them to the total, yet again making figures look higher than reality.

Satellite article

The fault was only discovered by chance and while the NOAA admit it was a genuine fault they refused to admit how long data had been used from it. Why would they want to hide such details if just an innocent mistake I wonder?
Posted by: OnimisiB

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Aug 25 2010 08:29 AM

Hi satguru and everyone. Nigeria will be launching an earth-observation satellite to participate in the observance of climate change. Here is the link

http://www.sst-us.com/media-gallery/imag...on-NigeriaSat-X
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Aug 27 2010 09:13 AM

Thanks Onimisi, good to see you back!

Like buses, you wait for ages then two come together. The CRU have been shown to create their own graphs showing a slope up from 1980 while two for the same place and period by others do not. CRU were actually picked up on the N Europe one by a Scandinavian climatologist who questioned why it varied from the ones they used, and the answer was less than comprehensible.

But if it's been shown CRU have created two similar graphs that deviate from others then a pattern may well exist beyond.

N Europe graphs

Official UK data

Hadley Centre version

I have been told by a scientist these two show the same thing in different ways, but as he is a hardline believer it may be trying to throw us off the scent- he says it's possible to present two graphs of the same data for the same period quite genuinely, but then again how are normal people likely to follow that when they see it, assuming it is even correct? If we have anyone here who can sort this pair out I'd like to know.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Sep 27 2010 02:32 PM

US adjusted temperatures

I have been working away in the background, and this example is typical of at least four similar charts I've dug up since my last visit. Because most people don't know the graphs and charts have been adjusted they assume (as they ought to) they are genuine. Far from it in fact. One country is being taken to court next month over a similarly altered temperature graph which tilted by about 45' after that had had the treatment. In fact the CRU who were caught mentioning tricks in their own charts haven't even released (or been made to release) their raw data. In fact if four where the raw data has been found in other ways have been shown to have adjustment, smoothing, rebasing and estimates added (these are said 'tricks') if the ones used by the IPCC to make world policy on are created in the same way and this was discovered then what platform would they then use to justify their claims used to make new laws worldwide? I believe this is the key to the warming reports more or less completely but surely when they adjust data they must realise someone will get it sooner or later yet they carry on as if they're somehow protected from any genuine investigation and sanctions.
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Sep 27 2010 09:52 PM

Today was a record high in LA and record highs in America were recorded over the summer. FOX News showed all of the snow last winter and sneered that global warming was a joke. With all the record heatwaves not a peep. The scientists and global bodies and governments accepting human caused global warming is overwhelming. If you are not going to accept this then you can rubbish gravity and evolution til the cows come home.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Sep 29 2010 08:48 AM

There are two totally different issues here, three if you mistrust the figures. One is whether the warming phase is natural since the last ice age or man made, and the third is once you find a series of conflicting graphs whether it is indeed warming at all.

On top of that you then have to ask whether the warming itself is a bad thing- history tells us we've been plenty warmer than this in the past and there was simply no disaster. That's pretty good evidence to me, far more reliable than computer guesses. And remember the temperature has risen 0.7'C in 150 years. The rest is pure conjecture, and individual local figures have to be added to the world picture before they gain any significance.
Posted by: picqero

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Oct 01 2010 07:53 AM

The record breaking Los Angeles heatwave has made little impact in world news. Perhaps we're all becoming bored with reports of record breaking weather conditions throughout the world
Posted by: Tizzabelle

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Oct 01 2010 08:43 AM

When considering any scientific matter one has to ask how the data was acquired. Anthony Watts and volunteers have been working on the Surface Stations project in the USA. The vast majority of weather stations which give the world temperatures are badly sited and give false high readings. Temperatures recorded in rural areas not affected by the urban heat island effect have shown virtually no rise in temperature in the last 100+ years. The number of weather stations that are used for data have been decreased over the years and a far larger proportion of stations situated towards the equator. This means the average temperature will be higher. One must always consider the source and analyse the data. When the most highly respected statisticians analysed the "hockey Stick" data they found it to be completely inaccurate. This is the "Hockey Stick" graph alarmists delight in citing. It's been disproven by more than one person in independent analyses. The whole premise of the "Hockey Stick" graph is a LIE. It's not a mistake, it's been fudged. One of the prominent dendrochronologists involved in climate data admitted in an email revealed by the Climategate scandal that temperatures now were matched by, if not lower than, temperatures 1,000 years ago. Temperatures these days are not new to the Earth. We survived before as did the polar bears. We will survive again wink

The Royal Society in the UK has announced this week they are reviewing their previously staunchly alarmist view of AGW in light of the Climategate scandal and a number of prominent members calling for the review. Scientific societies in the USA are having members protest or resign because of the societies' refusal to look at the science properly and their political rather than scientific approach.

Prof. James Lovelock is the man who came up with the concept of "Gaia". He's a scientist of the old school. Science is a vocation and falsifying data was close to a mortal sin in his book. Science was a pure aim, a search for the truth. Now he's saddened by "scientists" who use science for their own purposes be they fame, money or any other cause such as a political agenda. Here's a link to the BBC page with his interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

"Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to "fudge the data"."

My question is "Why do alarmists when presented with information that AGW is NOT real, not sing for joy in the streets because the world is not ending?" Alarmists, please look at the new information and be happy that the world is not ending! smile Then be angry that you've been lied to.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Oct 01 2010 08:49 AM

The problem with reporting isolated incidents is it isn't showing the big picture- just like when we had the freezing winter last year and were told only the overall picture mattered. Maybe the media have finally picked this up and realised this.
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Oct 01 2010 09:10 AM

I still feel that the evidence is overwhelming and because a few problems have been identified it does not nullify it. I realise one off events are not relevant, I was making the point that the opponents of Global Warming at FOX jumped up and down over one off events and no-one called them on it. If it is real and we don't act, who will be jumping up and down for joy then. The world is at peak oil anyway and will have to find other sustainable energy resources in the future. Why not bring it forward and at the same time bring a possible disaster under control. The risk of doing nothing is too great.
Posted by: Tizzabelle

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Oct 01 2010 10:09 AM

I agree that one off events aren't relevant. Perhaps Fox was trying to redress the alarmist stance of the mainstream media who call for action with every hot event but ignore every cold event. For instance, a radio journo in Sydney said in about May that April had record breaking heat. Agreed, April in Sydney was warm but not record breaking. It was the hottest for 27 years. Now if Bradman scored 845 runs 80 years ago and Punter scores 844 this year he's the top scorer since Bradman but he hasn't broken a record. The mainstream media seem to delight in slightly fudging things so they can claim it's a record heatwave or dry spell in order to grab attention. Now the heatwave in Northern Europe was hot and Finland did break temperature records with a 37C day (I think in July) but that was the fault of a high pressure system being stuck over parts of Russia and Finland. The same thing happens here and everywhere else. I can remember a two week heat wave in Sydney that wouldn't move and also two or maybe three 2 week spells of rain when it didn't stop raining for a minute because nothing moved the pressure system on. Shortly after the record heat in Finland and Moscow it snowed in Lappland and northen Russia. In July.

Please don't get me wrong about my stance on this. I do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. I read a lot about it and I remain skeptical i.e. if there is convincing, well reseached and proven evidence then I will change my mind. I do believe we should limit pollution and when I build my new house next year I'll have solar panels for energy generation and do all the right things as far as water conservation, insulation etc goes as I don't like pollution. I bring rubbish home from work to recycle it! I think companies that pollute in rivers etc should be heavily fined. I try not to buy imported foods for more than one reason (though I make an exception for Swiss chocolate and certain spirits but let's not go there..). I limit packaging as much as possible. I'm on the side of the angels when it comes to cleaning up the Earth. I don't believe we should sacrifice our lifestyle more than necessary in order to please a noble but mistaken ideal that the Earth is warming up or cooling down and it's our fault. smile
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Oct 01 2010 08:05 PM

Tizzabelle, that's the point exactly. Look after the environment for its own sake and treat the climate separately if and when we know more. In fact there has been no actual reduction in the CO2 rise whatever measures have been taken so far, which is obvious to anyone who has studied basic economics, as if you charge more for essentials people will simply pay more and spend less on luxuries, that is until they become so expensive no one but the very rich can afford them, and that is definitely the direction with the price rises although so far they haven't made a dent in the CO2 increase. But temperatures have not followed the line as there are so many other well known and less well known effects such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, El Nino, La Nina, and least understood the effects of solar changes such as sunspots and mass ejections etc.

The 'few problems' which have been identified are a little more than that though. The CRU for example, the climategate central hub, produce much of the data used by the IPCC which in turn sets world policies. Despite being shown to have changed various figures to fit certain models, they still refuse, saying they are not legally obliged to do so, to reveal their raw climate data. Now if I've found four varying graphs where raw data has been shown to vary from the finished product then I really do wonder what will be found if the CRU data comes out and is compared with their own public version?

Today this 45 minute film popped up which I've just finished watching before I saw these two replies. Rather than listen to me pass on other people's work anyone with a quiet 45 minutes to spare should see what they say directly. Calling what I've been digging up 'A few problems' is like calling Bernie Madoff a 'naughty boy' or Kim Il Jong 'A bit bossy'. These are mainly because the media, especially the TV rarely report anything besides the official line, meaning the independent scientists like the ones in the film are shunted onto the internet where there is little censorship. If you can especially watch it mountaingoat and then see if my caveats at trusting small inconsistencies mean a little more than before I'd be very interested.

Climate film

Now it's called 'Video of the day' which worries me a little it won't be there tomorrow, but fingers crossed. I'd save it myself but still wouldn't be able to show it online as too long for Youtube.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Oct 10 2010 06:11 PM

The event skeptics have been hoping for for years has been a mainstream scientist affirming our suspicions. Even though climategate gave many examples of what is done (originally) behind the scenes to reach certain conclusions, it was never possible to pin anyone down in an investigation to call it cheating.
Last week however someone finally jumped ship. Professor Hal Lewis, of Santa Barbara, has just resigned from The American Physical Society, saying basically they had given science a bad name by supporting the idea man creates global warming, and called the whole thing a money making scam. I for one no longer have to be seen as a lay jury member unqualified to comment on such matters, and from now on can quote him as a source I just happen to agree with. Also, I can't think of a single reason he should be making it up, he's got as much to lose on his reputation alone as any other scientist. I just wish the Telegraph knew how to spell emeritus as the typo has spread across the internet in sharing the link.

Full resignation letter
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Oct 24 2010 01:51 PM

I am doing a little dance over this one, a special adviser to the IPCC has just jumped ship (the first to follow Dr Lewis, but from the equivalent of the King's Counsel), and provided this classic quote:

"There are no representative measurements of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over any land surface, where “greenhouse warming” is supposed to happen. After twenty years of study, and as expert reviewer to the IPCC from the very beginning, I can only conclude that the whole affair is a gigantic fraud”

The whole quote is here. Whole story

Are we finally now seeing the beginning of the end?
Posted by: george48

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Oct 24 2010 03:13 PM

Ha-Ha!
I just hope this is the tipping point i mentioned earlier.
Truth will out!
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Nov 03 2010 05:35 PM

Imagine a hoaxer decided to create a webpage appearing to say the exact opposite of what the news were saying, like false bank sites luring the susceptible into entering their PIN numbers, passwords and safe combinations. What if a wiseguy created graphs showing temperatures and sea levels were stable and then pasting it onto a copy of the NOAA website and using their URL to link to it, which after all is done in various forms every day.

So imagine receiving a link to a copy of the NOAA page for California, currently engaged in implementing carbon trading, and seeing their own temperature hadn't risen on average in 110 years and the sea level was falling.

No, it is not a hoax, it's true!
Posted by: Tizzabelle

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Nov 04 2010 05:34 AM

Satguru, I've finally got around to watching the video you recommended and it's good. It covers several aspects of the AGW debate that are rarely discussed in the media except in an hysterical or biased way and without referral to any detractors of that aspect. It's a shame that these scientists aren't in the media as much as the more alarmist viewpoints. It's a shame that the media in general has jumped on the bandwagon without doing their research properly too.

There is an excellent book called "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon. He's a Canadian journalist and he's a devout "greenie". He's also high up in the management (if not the head honcho) of an environmental organisation. He interviewed the leading scientists in every facet of the AGW debate for their views. The odd scientist did still believe in AGW but not in their relevant field in which they were a leading expert. What he learnt surpised him.. the malfeasance in the some parts of the scientific community and in the IPCC itself was startling. He no longer believes in AGW (as far as I know) while remaining a committed environmentalist. There was one chapter which I gather has lost its credence with new data being available but on the whole it's an excellent and easy to read book for anyone with a basic knowledge of science. Congrats to Lawrence Solomon for doing what journalists should do.. investigate without bias! smile
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Nov 05 2010 08:59 PM

Wow, these sacred cows seem to be falling at a record rate now. The latest scare story was CO2 was being absorbed by the ocean making it acid and killing sealife. Two problems, one the ocean is alkaline and will remain so at all projected CO2 rates regardless, and two is the hundreds of surveys of ocean life since have found CO2 turns to bicarbonate in the sea which allows it to thrive. Oops!

Full story
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Nov 06 2010 11:29 AM

So while the US begin their climate investigations, the UN announce a plan to 'tackle climate change' by raising $100 billion a year from a world energy tax.
here it is

This alone should wake up a few (billion) people, but the additional issue is this requires a new law, as it is currently not possible to institute without another tier of government, ie at a world international level. While many people believe larger scale government isn't a bad thing in itself and not a problem, you must remember the UN are not elected so would be handing over national law to an unelected body. Secondly it's not possible to just make the law to apply to one single issue. Once this is in place the UN will gain the status of a world government, unelected and able to legislate on all areas. Something to think about.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Nov 08 2010 04:51 PM

A short wander round the world of philosophy to preface this link. In Star Trek each group of crew works independently to solve their predicament, as if no other was there to help, and in the end with one succeeding first it became clear if they'd done nothing they would still have been saved, but as none knew which group would succeed, or even the existence of other groups, the rule is to act as if working alone until otherwise indicated.

This is relevant as having just summarised what became seven separate sets of flat data made into hockey sticks, two being made by the same scientist. Of course one has to ask 'if the data is clear then why would anyone need to adjust it?'- all you need (I did a little statistics at school and college) is the figures, the averages and the deviation, ie variation from the norm. Those three, which all show as well, tell you the raw data, how it changes over time and how it compares to earlier measurments. Changing the average to one end or another is not standard procedure but has become so in the hockey sticks, as that is how they are made. Any random data, as demonstrated by Steven McIntyre and others since, will rise at one end if run through the equation to make it do so, it is impossible to create anything else.

Until today only a few internet bloggers including myself were concerned by this, but the Science and Public Policy Institute have just collated much of the same graphs and many more and come to a similar conclusion. They are simply making it up as it goes along. I am well aware how many managed to avoid peer review- it's summarised on many climategate sites and much was simply reviewed by their own team, in some cases by the writers themselves! I would be very interested to know how these claims can be denied as you simply can't present data which doesn't add up. I doubt the media will touch this for the usual reasons, but that's what the internet's for.

Report summary

Now when you've spent years finding similar data, and been blanked by literally every person you've presented it to who hadn't already worked it out you begin to wonder if there is no mouthpiece available to share this material. I decided to collate my own and see who was prepared to pass it on, and in best Star Trek fashion Worf and Data have just provided the work for me. Spock out.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Nov 12 2010 11:24 AM

Wow, this is a big one! If anyone has an idea how falling temperatures can be made to rise ten times faster than the world average I'd like to know. I'd say with so many of these a pattern has now definitely emerged, and the big question is why isn't anyone investigating it? I found them without any trouble, surely once this has been seen to happen worldwide it has to be checked?

Australian graph

Edited to add-

Wow, two in one day- this here is evidence wise the best yet as the GISS (US government agency) took an old graph (in black) showing established US temperatures till 1970 and accepted as such, and wrote a new version (in red). This goes a level above all previous graphs as they didn't just alter raw data, they completely twisted an official one as if no one would ever find it and see the difference. Now we have found it unless someone in an official status looks at it we are no further along the road to stopping more and more.

Naughty naughty!
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Nov 18 2010 07:19 PM

One less responsibility has passed from my hands, as if anyone was unable to accept governments worldwide would set up anything which was not entirely what it claimed to be about then it's now official:

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

This was not from a commentator or blogger as you'd have thought, it was from an IPCC official. They made the rules, they apply the rules and now we finally are certain about the rules.

As I'm sure the world's media will be entirely uninterested in reporting anything as boring as one of the most important admissions made possibly in my lifetime so I doubt anyone will find this out elsewhere but at least you now know. It's about the money. And you know what, those who currently didn't believe it will still say there's nothing wrong with that and it's fine. He wouldn't have dared to say it otherwise.

Report here
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Nov 25 2010 01:34 PM

I think this year is the beginning of the true data coming out, less than a week later an obscure Slovenian study for the IPCC confirms the majority of CO2 comes from warming oceans releasing it over a 700 year cycle as confirmed directly by ice cores. I can't see how with so many foundations being removed this concept can last a lot longer.

Lucka Kajfez-Bogotaj article
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Dec 13 2010 01:17 PM

Absolute classic, four different 2010 graphs, as if measured in different years or even different planets. Which is right? The media have chosen the rising one as it suits the IPCC, but sadly it was possible to see how it was created, and unfortunately the hot bits were added later. Oops...

What on earth is this?

Considering Cancun is planning rationing based on the odd graph of the four despite clearly being a figment of imagination, it makes me very worried few people challenge this sort of information despite being freely available online if nowhere else.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jan 09 2011 04:47 PM

Tizzabelle, the graft involved is so far and wide such reports will stay out of the public field indefinitely so only by people like us finding them and spreading them wherever we can the chances of someone important taking them and running with them grow. We have a journalist on one of my Facebook pages who does this and although I don't think he's ever taken up any of my suggestions at least he's available in case. Christopher Booker however is the only journalist I know anywhere who dared to publish James Hansen's 'unusual' temperature figures for 2010. In fact the freezing December made certain 2010 wasn't the hottest year ever (in fact this means since 1979 which is when current satellite records began). He somehow remains a free man though, and in his job, which considering how any other director of a company is judged would have put him on the street at least anywhere else.

For today's presentation, it's interesting how much animals are involved in cliches. If it looks like a duck etc., and the elephant in the room. Well this is both a duck and the size of both an elephant and what it produces. Carbon trading sounded so much like Enron to me that I told everyone that our world governments are behaving like convicted criminals (that's just one example of many, protection rackets and spraying noxious substances in the air are illegal as well but that's straying off the point). So it came as no surprise when I discovered this was indeed a duck and not a cat or monkey in a duck mask. Enron did indeed help Al Gore create carbon trading, and as such means he has created his plan taken up by most of the world as part of a criminal conspiracy. Add to that his own company which he pays his own credits to, which is both insider trading and market manipulation, makes you wonder how and why this is part of government policies now or in the future without any significant opposition. I'm all for giving to charity but not to people with more money than me, and choose to pay it when I can afford it rather than be taken at source.

Here it is
Posted by: Tizzabelle

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jan 17 2011 09:58 AM

Hi satguru, I can't say I'm surprised by that info tho I'd not seen it before. Some of our largest mineral companies here in Oz who were frantically lobbying to NOT have a carbon tax are now in favour of it. Something dodgy happening there.. follow the money as they say in the classics. The truly galling thing is that it is the average person who will pay for it in increased energy prices, food prices (it has to be transported somehow), increased prices for everything really. The mineral and energy companies won't end up paying a cent in extra tax as they will forward on the price hike to the consumer. *sigh*
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jan 17 2011 09:22 PM

The carbon tax, like all, simply redistributes wealth. Guess who gets them now, yep, energy companies. They have been given credits here free, and sold the unused ones after a year for millions. If that is how they are run I presume the same applies elsewhere. Carbon offsets are unregulated so currently it's legal for the companies to pocket the lot, if they chose to, also not to keep records of how they are used. Not very environmentally friendly once you find that out somehow. And yes, of course the companies make sure all added tax is simply absorbed by the consumer. Here the UK is leading as all energy companies pass theirs on annually and we have the highest fuel and energy prices ever. Meanwhile the wind farms which just opened did about 4-8% of their usual 25% or so capacity during last month's ice, which I fully expected and is pretty well guaranteed as when the cold front comes the wind drops to leave it in place for a week or two. That's how it always worked and when we need it the most.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jan 30 2011 07:22 PM

So far I've been posting errors in the official data which have been discovered at a later date. Although not claiming to understand more than the tip of this iceberg, here is what appears to be a comprehensive (only 5 pages including large diagrams) explanation of how CO2 works in the atmosphere. Whichever way you look at the figures, doubling, tripling or even more does not appear to contribute to anything besides slightly changing the makeup of the atmosphere. I'd be interested if anyone can disagree with this rather than confirm it as if correct means we have all been had.

CO2 heat absorption spectrum
Posted by: Tizzabelle

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jan 31 2011 05:22 AM

Oh boy, that report is well above my ability to comprehend it but I'll give you my understanding on the ability of CO2 to add to the greenhouse effect. From the extensive reading that I've done, the Earth is about at maximum levels of CO2 for it to have any effect. Adding more CO2 won't do diddly squat (gosh I can be polite when I have to be...) to the temperature and we're not going to burn up in a fire ball! CO2's effect on the atmosphere goes up in a logarithmic fashion rather than a linear one.

If you put a piece of black cotton fabric over a window it will block out (let's say) 90% of the light. If you put another piece of fabric over the same window it will block out another 1% of the light. Another piece of the same fabric will block out another 0.35% etc etc etc. Adding more CO2 is like adding another another piece of black fabric. It won't do much at all. There is a huge rise in the effect of CO2 from about 200ppm (don't quote me on this) to about 320ppm(?) but after that there is very little effect.

If CO2 had a linear effect on temperatures and the greenhouse effect, for every ppm we put into the atmosphere there would be a corresponding rise in greenhouse effect. There isn't. As far as I know that is universally accepted even by the alarmist side of the argument but it's not that well known in the general community or at least the people I talk with.

What I don't understand is why the graphs displaying CO2 and temperatures over the ages aren't explained to all and sundry. Since time immemorial CO2 has risen in the ice cores AFTER the temperature. On average this occurs about 800 years after the temperature rise. CO2 then falls about 800 years AFTER the temperature falls. Part of the CO2 rise we're experiencing now is the release of CO2 from the oceans 800 years (roughly) after the Medieval Warming Period. Somehow that is never explained properly, the graphs are separated and it appears that the CO2 rise comes before the temp. rise.. but it doesn't. 90% or more (depending which source you read) of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from totally natural sources in and on the Earth. Let's not forget that the greatest greenhouse gas of all is water vapour which contributes (depending on the material you read) anywhere from 85-93% of the greenhouse effect. I don't see anyone screaming that we need to remove water from the planet wink

Here's a nice blog in which a geology professor emeritus has graphs of the temps the Earth has lived through over the last 10,000 years. We have a long way to go before we reach the heights of the various warming periods. I think we'll be ok.. smile

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jan 31 2011 09:32 PM

Lovely job there, it filled in quite a lot of the gaps and although the missionary site (created to convert skeptics believe it or not) says it's rubbish then again I think quite a few older studies made before the climate became a political issue say the same thing, meaning it was probably established science that had to be set aside for the bigger picture (see my quote for evidence).

I also read for the second time this week that glaciers are so hard to melt it needs centuries above zero before they do, and then a few degrees above it as the threshold to do so is higher than simple melting point due to the latent heat. That would mean (also pretty established old science) that expecting glaciers to melt from a rise which frankly hasn't happened yet within the century is taking us all for fools. It is more likely glaciers are melting since we left the little ice age and if they are doing so now it is because of a warming which took place hundreds of years ago.

As for the CO2 the paper (ie linear) equation has a doubling from 260ppm to 560ppm (currently 390 or so) to 1C. The rest would be due to positive feedback from cloud and water vapour. Except as CO2 hasn't risen rapidly for most of measurable history (although when it did it reached the thousands, but that's another story entirely) the mechanisms are simply unknown as totally outside our experience to consider. The best computer models can't factor in future effects yet to happen if they can't tell how CO2 molecules will displace water and clouds and at what levels. Many scenarios would have CO2 replacing water vapour right now, as measured by NASA's own AQUA satellite, where it counts, replacing a powerful greenhouse gas with a much weaker one.

And although I am not quite up to measuring the actual rise since 1860 or so when they started measuring 260ppm, the rough 0.7C from 260-390 would point to around 1.4C if linear, slightly above but well within the paper formula. Except that doesn't take into account natural changes such as the powerful Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the much less known effects of solar changes. When I saw the argument in the latest BBC anti-skeptic programme tonight that regardless of the skeptics there isn't a single piece of evidence the simple formula of adding CO2 causing probably dangerous global warming means they don't come here at least. The people I am beginning to work with online include two geologists and just this week a climate scientist who makes a living through his own forecasts rather than being paid whatever the outcome as universities are. They won't be sacked if in 10 or 20 years their projections prove as phoney as pools tipsters, as besides everyone forgetting about them long beforehand (most predictions are forgotten within days if set further ahead) the margins for error are so wide they are not meant to be predictions but simply the best they can do at the moment, which quite frankly has little if any value.
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Feb 16 2011 08:41 AM

It is interesting to me that a lot of the people who doubt the scientists on climate change are fully supportive of the science to do with GM foods.
Posted by: Tizzabelle

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Feb 16 2011 11:00 AM

It's interesting to me that global warming alarmists sometimes use ad hom attacks to play the man, not the science. Calling someone who disagrees with you a Holocaust denier or GM food advocate isn't a valid viewpoint in my opinion. I don't deny the holocaust and I dislike GM foods for more than one reason. When it comes to the CAGW debate I look for the truth. I don't like being lied to. So many of the things that are espoused as proof of CAGW are misnomers or in some cases, lies. I find that distressing. Science should be about the truth not fudging the truth in order to manipulate opinions for one reason or other.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Feb 16 2011 09:33 PM

Originally Posted By: mountaingoat
It is interesting to me that a lot of the people who doubt the scientists on climate change are fully supportive of the science to do with GM foods.


As the enthusiasts on the site I regularly visit ask me the whole time, has that been peer reviewed?
Seriously, each person has views on individual issues. Outside actual political views which are purely someone's opinion and not really right or wrong, scientific issues can be controversial as unlike something like law which is man made and hard to get wrong as a result (my own original field) science is a constant learning process, and over the centuries many pet theories were proved very wrong when better ways of measurement came along. Logic is king though, and when the case for man made warming is presented to anyone with a basic grasp of science, logic and evidence it doesn't add up for me at least. As for GM, smoking, peak oil etc they have absolutely no place in discussing a single issue which is totally unconnected.
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Feb 16 2011 11:22 PM

I guess the point I was trying to make was that people pick the science they believe and that decision is often coloured by their beliefs and politics etc. I am a bit wary of GM because it is promoted by a corporation trying to make billions of dollars and most of the research has been done by those companies. IMHO the evidence for climate change being caused by human actions is overwhelming. I have seen the many thousands of scientists in the relevant field who agree and among the hundreds of peer reviewed studies done, not one is in disagreement. With tens of thousands of pages written by scientists, of course there are going to be some mistakes and over enthusiastic people who do the wrong thing. But it is a big stretch to use this to deny the massive amount of evidence. I have seen interviews and speeches by these scientist and they very easily answer the complaints from the deniers. To claim that these scientists didn't take into account solar flares is just insulting. There is also the conspiracy that they are all just using it to get funding. It would have to be the most successful conspiracy in history without a single whistleblower. If you want to follow the money look who is to lose trillions if coal and oil are wound back. These companies also own the media companies and continually talk down climate change whereas scientists believe the science was accepted 20 years ago.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Feb 17 2011 09:49 PM

The big problem is everyone besides the climatologists is an outsider. The small cabal who you claim is the majority of scientists is simply the trust they have in their colleagues who can supply the figures on paper and then imply certain events are a result of them does not make them insiders, they are just more informed outsiders than everyone else.

Conspiracies have a standard format and in the end nearly all are blown, normally after those who benefit are long gone along with our money. Size is not important as human nature is such that however many people realise they either can make a positive profit through leading, or far worse and accounting for the vast majority avoid a loss by following will make many apparently ethical and balanced professionals simply keep a low profile as their own profession including them would end up looking very bad if they decided to speak out. Except many do speak out when no longer or never employed by universities or governments. Whatever the latest studies that claim yet more weather is my fault and yours once you delve deeply into them they are not what they seem, but mere supposition, mainly as our temperatures are little or no higher now than they should have been (although I'm really not sure it's possible to know in advance the way a world temperature graph would go naturally as the cycles are far too general to be predicted that closely) following the recovery from the last small ice age.

Add to that the finance and politics involved, separately, the finance being covered in great detail already and something which had already made Enron (ie a very large conspiracy quite officially blown apart over time) go down for fraud and reinvented as carbon trading. The politics is more the followers than leaders, accounting for the lion's share of supporters. These are the vocal left, the anti globalists/capitalists active since the middle of the 20th century in one form or another, always on the fringes of western democracy who now find the most plausible scenario to create a true collectivist society by withdrawing individual rights and freedoms to the world problem. Car driving has long been a symbol of the radical left's beef with freedom and individuality, and now they can loudly shout to the world to get out of their cars and onto public transport and bikes to save the planet. What a passport to power that is for them, after half a century marching through the streets being beaten up by police to finally be on the side of the conventional political side at last. I still haven't a clue why anyone would want to be against individual freedom, maybe if they lost theirs then they wouldn't any longer, but it is a popular view now and one which has finally got a world issue to begin to put their idea of paradise into action, and my own and most others of the other place downstairs. I may not understand why they want such a ghastly fate to uncivilise the western world but I don't understand vandals or bombers much but there is no shortage of them either.

Bottom line global warming appeals to those unscrupulous enough at the top (compare the tip of the iceberg UK politicians done for fiddling their expenses this year) to milk any opportunity for what it's worth, the silent majority squeezed in the middle who don't agree but are too scared to speak out, and the rebels who want to dismantle capitalism who for the first time see the seeds being planted by governments around the world. If that's not a formula for maintaining it then nothing is.
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Feb 18 2011 12:20 AM

Thanks satguru for a very well reasoned and articulate argument. I am on the opposite side to most of what you say - as I am a radical left greenie. However it is good to understand the thinking behind those who think differently and it helps me to think a bit more about my own beliefs. I do believe in more public transport and I think high speed trains are the future even to the extent of bridging the Bering Strait (this is being seriously looked at)and having the world connected by it as air travel is going to become very expensive and difficult with oil running short. I also believe in individual freedom and hope electric cars remain an option for those who want more of it. I don' believe our future is a choice between capitalism and communism but a capitalism with a heart. I would rather have government voted in by us making decisions for me than a market controlled by CEO 's who's only goal is profit and do not take into account any of their effects on society.

As for climate change, the main thing that convinces me is the short time scale of the change and the radical weather events already happened and predicted by the scientists. I do not think people are capable of making sacrifices needed to have any effect. I think we are going to either spend money to fix these disasters and help those who are starving or dying of thirst...OR we spend it on armies to steal the resources including water and food that are left. Looking beyond the next election cycle let alone to 50 years is beyond us, especially in this "gotta have it now" generation.

I can also understand your suspicion of closed shop thinking where anyone who challenges the status quo is an outsider. I guess the world as the centre of the universe type thing in the old days and more recently 2 Australian scientists proved Ulcers were caused by a bacteria in the gut and could be fixed with anti biotics. They were ridiculed for years. I would say though, that with scientific studies being more rigid in the last hundred years and peer reviewed studies etc. this kind of thing is becoming rarer. With all of the discoveries in those years it is hard to find many that have been later blown apart. I do understand your suspicion but in this case I disagree and with the more information I gleen the more convinced I am that human caused climate change is happening.

All the best mate

Glenn
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Feb 18 2011 11:39 AM

Thanks Glenn, and just shows people can disagree on something fundamental but be nice about it and accept the other's point of view whether or not they agree as well. As far as the evidence is concerned, looking for trouble is guaranteed to find it. My equation for the climate is that had there been no rise in CO2 firstly there would have been no additional recording and searching for extreme weather events, and secondly if there had been a reason they would gradually have got closer to finding it slowly and carefully instead of rashly jumping to conclusions (I've heard it said on the radio by one who admitted it from the inside as 'They couldn't think of any other reason...') as they were worried there may be a danger to the earth, but simply said we don't know what's causing it and can settle down and look at every single possible cause (solar and lunar effects, delayed ocean release etc) until clues arise and we start to put a picture together. But once it was CO2> man all other avenues were closed, locked and bolted and anyone with equal qualifications to themselves who suggested them were rejected out of hand.

It has sadly also showed up some dirty dealings at a very high level. Mistakes are normal, covering them up is dishonesty and the ones I referred to by the IPCC and NASA had been brought to their attention years earlier and they simply carried on hoping no one would mention it publicly, but in fact both did become known and it was only then they did anything about it. If it was trial and error we could all accept it but this was the same as finding someone else's property by chance and not giving it back till someone found you had it. That is as much theft (UK Theft Act) as having taken it yourself. And like a partner who cheats, once your lords and masters let you down it's very hard to have trust in them in any area, and would suggest a divorce by kicking them all out worldwide and starting again with new ones where appropriate. I no longer trust our lot anyhow.
Posted by: Mugaboo

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Feb 18 2011 12:51 PM

Someone is locked in a room for a few weeks. During this time it is noticed the temperature rises and falls a bit, especially falling at night time. One night this person lights a candle, and leaves it burning overnight. On waking up the temperature is noticeably hotter than usual.

Government (official) conclusion: The candle has warmed the room.
Room warming sceptics conclusion : A warm weather front has arrived outside.


In my view global warming is the same on a more complicated scale.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Feb 18 2011 02:42 PM

Here's a bit of the data at the core of some basic suppositions which I have never seen the proof of: Ice core data that indicates a level of atmospheric acidity through the ages. None have proven that ice sitting under a ton of pressure, at -5C for 25,000 years doesn't change its ph level under those conditions (wouldn't a lightning strike in the vicinity alter the noted ph levels of the ice? In 10,000 years there must have been strikes). There is no book in the world that has proven that ph levels can be relied on for any period of time longer than 100 yrs.
My sense is that ph (acidity) is a function of electrical and ion potential in a material. We do know that electron availability is effected by outside pressures and temperatures, So why has no one linked that to long term effects on ice samples?

Not to mention that most of these cores are taken at the ice caps of the planet which have the Earth's magnetosphere dumping wave after wave of aurora particles into those very samples. No, I do not think any measure of electrical record in ice samples is reliable in the long term by the very nature and environment of the beast.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Feb 18 2011 09:19 PM

Good stuff mehaul, it's way out of my field so can't judge it at all but does tell me how hard these sort of measurements are to make both past and present, and dare I say impossible and dangerous for the future. Dangerous as policies are made (eg diverting cash from flood defences in Australia and salt for snow in the UK just before floods and two record winters) based purely on some maven who's able to map current weather conditions reasonably well by setting up programs so is trusted to project them into the future. Bear in mind no equipment was ever made for more than a 60 day forecast until this became an issue, and the IPCC say even models a decade ago were woefully inadequate. This after Kyoto had been set up based on what was freely admitted years later to be primitive compared to the present day, yet at the time it was 'cutting edge' and committed countries across the planet to divert funds as a result.

Mugaboo, your candle in the room simplifies the reality as well as the governments try to. Of course in a lab double CO2 and the temperature rises by a degree. Light a candle in a room (ie a closed system just like a greenhouse), and the calculations can be measured after the event by microdegrees. Except the candle generates heat directly while CO2 retains it, and not evenly but at 8% of all wavelengths at a reducing rate until saturated. Therefore the insulating falls with concentration while heating effects are constant with energy released by any constant source.

Do the equivalent on a planetary level and you're literally playing with fire (in the form of the sun) and every other major and minor influence such as the ocean currents and oscillations, jet streams, atmospheric saturation levels, solar and lunar effects, volcanoes, not to mention the natural forces which produce a sharp rise before an ice age every so many thousand years, eight are recorded on an almost identical pattern of a few small waves followed by a big one around about a million year period (or more? I haven't got it with me but the pattern is what counts).

Trying to compare a simple lab experiment with the atmosphere is what got the world embroiled in this possible delusion in the first place. It is not reasonable to try and simplify such a complex system, one of the most complex we know of, which gave rise to chaos theory, as if it can be compared. That's what's got coal power stations banned in the EU and will hold us to ransom to sharks worldwide trying to flog us far worse alternatives just as one example. That includes solar and wind which cost around 8 times more per kilowatt and forced upon us by legal fiat. Meanwhile CO2 has gone up over 40% since 1850 and the temperature is up 0.7', which tells us there has been no feedback as if there had the rise would have been well over that and that is all we really know.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Mar 19 2011 09:07 AM

After finding and adding isolated examples here one by one I have just discovered someone has done all the work for me. What is now clear is that as climate figures were obscure and irrelevant prior to now then no one actually knew or cared (as they quite rightly didn't need to) so whatever has been presented to them since has been assumed to be genuine. Lord Monckton has both proved beyond any doubt that the current release of records has deliberately wiped out the medieval warm period, akin to pretending there was no Battle of Hastings or Great Fire of London, and provided so many accredited studies showing basically every single plank of Al Gore's argument is pure bunkum, that if the media gave this equal attention to the official view the whole issue would be gone in a few months.

Monckton report

Lord Monckton has been criticised for not being a scientist, but he has a postgraduate qualification in journalism, and quite capable of gathering data from scientists and allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions. That's called investigative journalism and requires no more science qualifications than being a detective. Even if you're convinced the other side is right then the main point here is there is another side and it won't ever go away and must be taken into account.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Mar 21 2011 04:11 PM

To save a lengthy download which still makes my computer jam when complete I'll copy some of the best stuff here now.

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” Sir John Houghton

“We have to offer up scary scenarios” Dr Stephen Schneider

“A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’” David Deming, 2005

“Global climate change” papers: 539
Evidence for “catastrophe”: 0
Schulte (2008)

“No supercomputer,however powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming... The models are tuned to assume a high climate sensitivity, so a high climate sensitivity is what they find.”

Syun-Ichi Akasofu 2008

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC (2001)

"Solar changes cause most climate change. The Sun caused today’s global warming. Today’s warming is normal, not unusual. Today’s global warming will end soon."
IAU (2004)

“Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed changes may be natural.”

IPCC

The graphs I can't copy are even better.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Apr 30 2011 11:03 AM

Wow, up till now UN and similar predictions have all been placed beyond our lifespans so impossible to confirm or deny, ie worthless. But this one is a clanger of such proportions, based on the same underlying figures, they have truly outdone themselves. They predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2010, mainly from the Caribbean, and as of 2011 there is not a single report of one person moving for reasons of the climate. The sea level remains rising around 9 inches a century as it has for as long as I remember records showing on average, and if they insist on extrapolating computer models into greater and greater tangents then sooner or later their junk science will finally catch up with them Article and analysis

Now this whopper was based on the same hockey stick forward projection and associated computer generated results (drought, floods, fire, brimstone, you know) and can safely say not a single other prediction made from about 1980 since has even come close to beginning let alone completing. The positive feedback, meant to increase the official 1C increase in temperature by doubling CO2 never manifested either as the state at around a 50% increase is consistent with the 1C total. Unless feedback kicks in later on (there isn't much time to go now) one can logically assume using the principle of intertia (things continuing as they are) and extrapolation it was only in the same computer generated imagination as the refugees, rising sea levels and basically every single other thing they scared the children with. But governments worldwide still carry on as if CO2 is the devil and they do everything they can to charge people more for producing the same amount (as we have no choice the increase is constant despite massive taxation) and using machinery to try and generate electricity you'd expect to see Robinson Crusoe trying to build on a desert island as he wanted to charge his mobile phone. I'd think rubbing two sticks together would have to be better than a windmill or solar panel, the cost to power ratio is many times greater than conventional and much of the time they don't work at all and need the generators to kick in. Big fail all round I think.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon May 09 2011 11:31 AM

Anyone in doubt that the climate is not actually doing anything unusual needs to look at the latest figures here, not supplied by an independent scientist open to accusations of inaccuracy for whatever reasons that are given, but an official US supplier of data, the University of Colorado. sea level figures

Sea level is the simplest and easiest criterion to measure. It has risen for the last 22,000 years and the original fast pace following a small ice age has naturally reduced to almost zero, something the IPCC prefer not to draw attention to as once people see in fact the rise is grinding to a steady halt they'll naturally wonder how this is possible if the far harder to measure average world temperature has indeed increased. In fact the best stories spun by Al Gore and friends talk about the same imaginary 'climate refugees', the 10 million a year fleeing from inundated low lying land and new deserts to safer ground, which actually never happened in the allotted time to 2010. The inches a century which it has risen at since time immemorial is not just continuing but consistent with the lower diagram, is on a logarithmic curve tending to zero. The actual sea level rise has now been falling since 2007, so rather than measure the consistently rising CO2 which appears to grow independent of both all the vast taxes to charge people more to create it, and the worthless alternatives which spend most of the time gathering dust at costs of billions (I have some of the accounts in an article, a normal business would have collapsed after the first year but these are subsidised by tax revenue) the actual scary stuff they want us all to think is happening to make us vote in their taxes (as we all have across the western world) just ain't real. If the sea is slowing down the rise then both the melting land ice and thermal expansion, the equal causes of it, can't be increasing and must actually be reducing in speed.

Global temperature is not a reliable figure at all as it varies from place to place and time to time, so as much of the world is not measured they can select particular 'representative samples', but many are on airstrips and city centres which do not reflect the true temperature as heated by buildings and vehicles. Also when calculating temperature they start mixing and matching the quite different land, sea and air temperatures, and if they get the selection just right can make it show pretty much any direction they choose. Not so for sea levels. You can measure them with floats or satellites, and although they vary across the planet the time and location changes are a small fraction of temperature, and can only be measured in one place, ie the surface. As they are so much harder to select and play around with (although still possible) the actual data they produce is the most valuable of all as it is far less open to 'interpretation' (which should not be possible at all when making vitally accurate measurements) but pretty much speaks for itself.

As the website only presents data, and not any underlying explanations, unless the IPCC or similar choose to answer the question no one will ask them, why is the sea level rise still falling when you say it should be growing, we can only apply the rules of physics as we know them and try and work it out ourselves. I'd be interested to know if there are any besides the obvious 'the temperature can't be rising' one, but remain prepared to be surprised.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue May 10 2011 06:11 PM

The commonest question I hear on this subject is 'Why would there be a conspiracy?'. In fact most people know the answer already (it's hardly exactly hidden) but don't think it's possible. I just came across this direct quote which I'd say speaks for itself:

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."


- Club of Rome

More details
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jun 11 2011 10:35 AM

For the first known time this conspiracy has now gone on the national media, as I rang Talk Sport radio last night and blew the gaff on the whole thing. Good news on top is it's been podcast, I'm from 1.24.55 to 1.38 which is split onto the second half hour section.

satguru on the radio
Posted by: Trigger7

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jun 11 2011 04:50 PM

Enjoy chatting with yourself much? Climate Change is being experienced every day in so many parts of the World, Extreme Flooding, worst in 350 years where I come from.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jun 11 2011 05:16 PM

There's a small (literally) problem with that one, world average temperatures have only gone up 0.8C since 1850. The sort of consequences you're referring to would need well over 2C and even then could not be automatically assigned to mankind. And as the sea level isn't rising as much as it was before (centuries before) that also implies strongly temperatures are rising more slowly as well.

And although you seem to think I'm talking to myself this thread has already received over 10,000 views. It's more like a blog, few comment but many read.

Also, why is it you haven't explained the quotes from the Club of Rome, Gorbachev and Ottmar Edenhofer? They have openly admitted this is the case, but you are the first person here to overlook it so am interested to know why.
Posted by: mhenson400

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jun 11 2011 07:20 PM

"Extreme Flooding, worst in 350 years where I come from."

Trigger so why was the flooding so bad 350 years ago? The global cooling/warming alarmists take every weather event and claim that is proof of man made climate change.

Here are some facts.

Al Gore claims that we are putting 70,000,000 tons of pollution per day into the atmosphere. While I am sure that figure is grossly exaggerated, let's assume that it is true.

The mass of the atmosphere is 5,512,500,000,000,000 tons.

That is a ratio of 78,750,000 to 1 per day or 0.000001269841270%.

That is the equivalent of adding one drop of water to a 1281.74 gallon pool. And like a pool the atmosphere filters out pollution; through precipitation.

Thanks Satguru for this thread I, like many others, enjoy reading your comments.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jun 12 2011 07:57 AM

Thanks mhenson. I have to say that I wouldn't have dared to start a thread on any subject, especially such a controversial one, until I'd thoroughly done my homework. As you pointed out, whichever way you arrange the figures they don't add up. But because 'those in authority' (especially the untouchable and perfect PhD's) have told us something, god forbid one or more of us dare to question it.

In fact it isn't quite as simple as that. There are many, many PhD's who do not agree with this at all, but as the media barely mention them of course as they only persist in reporting the ones who do (and what do politicians actually know more than we do- they are advised by the same PhD's as everyone else) the overall impression is global warming is real and man made.

But they left out one major element. In 1990 when Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev made their speeches about combatting dangerous global warming, as well as the IPCC claiming a 1.5C rise by 2010 (it was 0.1C), nobody had access to the main data via the internet then but they now do.

So now we have all the shorter term predictions made in the 90s in, (not one happened) and overt admission over a 20 year period it was set up to control and collect funds, the prevailing impression has not been changed to fit. And the obsession with weather watching we never had before means although the IPCC have both warned against using examples of short term and local weather for both sides, and stated they cannot yet assign a single event to global warming, 'bad weather equals global warming' if you are looking for it, despite the official warnings, and if you try and challenge it you get cut down. The facts speak for themselves, I just wish people who don't like what I say would go out and follow up the leads themselves. It's all out there.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Jul 01 2011 07:34 PM

I am currently in shock, a major plank of global warming has just been instantly dismantled, an expert has just testified in a court of law, presumably under oath,

..."That means that while the bear has healthy populations now ..."

Yes, after Al Gore, Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth, George Monbiot etc etc have all used the decline in polar bears as a trademark of the warming case, this has all been wiped out in seconds in an obscure US court.
Full report

To my knowledge this is the first time an official spokesperson has openly admitted a previous gospel to be wrong, and rather than come from either an independent expert or a skeptic where it would have simply been swatted away like an annoying mosquito, this was part of a case advocating man made warming, and the point was made as part of a statement trying to claim the population was heading for a decline. Now whatever the claims besides the stars and planets mankind and science within it cannot see the future. It can guess tomorrow's weather to a varying degree, next week's sometimes and the latest tests showed anything beyond that was no better than using a chimpanzee (it was on the BBC radio news and couldn't note the details). But as the foundation of AGW is computerised projections (although history explains the results of both warmer climates in Roman times and plenty of time with no sea ice at all, yet polar bears survived it) although I'm amazed they were allowed in a court as do not have the status of evidence, by attempting to present it as such they clearly and unequivocably stated that polar bear populations are indeed healthy, as skeptics and many naturalists have been trying to say for years. Had someone not drawn my attention to this in the chat boards it may well have slipped under the radar altogether and not been noticed by anyone, but I am hoping it will now spread like wildfire as it's pretty well an official confession and needs to be known about as widely as possible.
Posted by: Trigger7

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jul 02 2011 05:29 PM

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/wildli...CFRHGKgodqzzPZg
Here is a report on the disappearing arctic ice and how it is and will affect our Polar Bear population.
The Polar Bear does not only live at the North Pole , Satguru, you must be thinking of Santa Claus. Churchill, Manitoba, Canada, is the Polar Bear Capital of the World, and it lies 2,156 kilometres or 1,347 Miles from the North Pole.
I am not a fan of David Suzuki, or any other Scientist on either "Side" of the Global Warming debate.
I am of the opinion that the havoc that mankind has imposed on Mother Nature , especially over the past 120 years, cannot help but change our oceans, our land, and our atmosphere. I do my little part to recycle, reduce, re use and hopefully extend the life of our Earth .
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jul 02 2011 07:56 PM

You see there is always common ground, and looking after the environment is one, and commonsense to do so. My only issue there is that not only is CO2 not my idea of a problem, less of all the climate, it has hijacked the whole movement, and even though all you describe is what everyone should do (but doesn't, mainly in the corporate field as clean costs money) nowadays every single statement adds the climate to it. This is not just irrelevant to what used to be a wish to look after our surroundings, but plain wrong. You do not recycle, save energy or avoid pollution for the climate, but because you should do so for its own sake. If people continue to merge an unproven theory with the good stuff we are all heading down the toilet. Money for other projects is already being wasted on windfarms which barely generate a thing and need a 90% (from the latests UK figures) backup, and vast amounts spent on climate research which is shifting it from worthier projects which may have helped people right now with known problems. The money spent could already have drained all the swamps harbouring malaria mosquitos, and every single penny spent on the climate is a penny not spent on other research or projects. That is a massive cost to prevent something we'll never know about as even the worst Jonahs out there don't expect much to be noticed within our own lifetimes. That's not a business budget but an open vein.

As for your study it has skated over the hidden point in your last article, that despite Al Gore's film and every claim made generally since, it was stated, under oath I presume, in a court of law, that the polar bear population is currently healthy. That is all we know, period. No one, not even (especially) David Suzuki, Rajendra Pachauri, Al Gore or any of their friends, has a crystal ball. And polar ice can only exist at the poles so what else were you referring to? If Manitoba is ice free and therefore not polar then doesn't it show my point they can live with or without ice? And if it does (I have no idea) then anywhere covered in polar ice at any time of the year is polar. The Arctic Circle is the official line and that comes a long way south of the pole.

And finally the sort of random general (unless you are a scientist) comment that if we have imposed havoc it must change the climate is how we got in this state in the first place- Al Gore was not qualified to judge and my own diagram shows him pretty well at the source of this theory, not any official ones. He got his inspiration from his lecturer (science was a minor of his arts degree and a subject he did not excel in) Roger Revelle, who later discounted it as incorrect. If you look into the area deeply you begin to see many elements that should not be there, and if rotten in parts is not a good sign about the whole. These are either dismissed, overlooked or more generally not even known by most who believe the conventional idea, especially the poor children in the UK who had An Inconvenient Truth on the national school syllabus and we're now stuck with a whole generation of Al Gores. They aren't expected to check what their teachers tell them and none of the material I've exposed on this thread (in a legal trial would at least raise reasonable doubts) is included as balance. That is pure political indoctrination and whatever the pundits and mavens tell you and me, those are no more than guesses and are not even worth considering by anyone as proved no more accurate than random. You didn't accept the list I posted in the chat boards but as it contains hundreds you would need a lot of work to show most of them were actually correct as you tried with the first few.

So basically please try and separate the environment and the climate. Blurring the two has caused what I see as the downfall of world government (only Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic openly disagree with the theory so no means an exaggeration) as so many people can't see the difference between the two any more and everything in their lives is focussed on how much damn CO2 it emits. That is an illness and an obsession and will gain nothing in the long or short run. China however accept global warming as real, but have the sense to carry on their CO2 emissions as they have acknowledged the costs of cutting it (which the UK bear more than anywhere else as we are committed to the highest reductions I know of) are far greater than the benefits from high production and cheap power. And if only I could live another 100 years and see it did absolutely no harm to the climate at all.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jul 07 2011 03:59 PM

Very, very interesting. The few in the media who challenge man-made warming have claimed for years that the world surface temperature stopped rising in 1998. Anyone daring to quote this has been called every possible known insult and a few new ones, and now after 13 years a study from no less than the universities of Harvard, Boston and Turkuu in Finland have admitted it. By looking for a reason there has been no warming since 1998 (no more than a silly random guess torn apart by all their well-qualified peers such as Judith Curry within minutes of publication) their irrelevant conclusion Chinese power stations have emitted enough SO2 to cancel the CO2 effect (yes, for the entire planet), they simply said "The reason... there has been no warming from 1998 to 2008..."

Sulphur article

Well after being called a baby killer myself (it's amazing the levels people fall to when challenged with an intellectual argument that disputes their beliefs) having waited since this all began within a single week we've both had an official admission polar bears are still thriving, and now, amazingly, we were actually correct all along that temperatures stopped rising since 1998.

That of course also means all those 'adjusted' graphs I've shown examples of were not the good ones as they claimed, but the clear raw data which agreed whoever measured it anywhere. And the main reason I spread these stories online is you won't see them anywhere else besides a few newspapers who are already preaching to the converted. But it's ironic that these two will be interpreted as 'although nothing's happened yet' it's going to very very soon!. Yes, and the cheque's in the post... But it's on record now and official, from their side, and no one can ever call me a liar again for claiming it.

PS- all I can say is wow- 1000 scientists now question man made warming, complete with full quotes- even James Lovelock (one of the original band of leaders) turns out to have turned, and if Jesus had done the same thing then surely people would have listened, but no.

1000 scientists dissent in public

Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jul 20 2011 06:14 PM

Even I wasn't expecting this one- climate change is now officially a business! The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, managed by Peter Dunscombe, who not coincidentally also manages the closely connected BBC's pension fund (are you beginning to see a picture forming here?), has now raised climate change to an international management fund. So in a simple sentence, if climate change laws continue, they win, if they stop they lose the lot. Who said it isn't all about the money?

The BBC invest in climate change

The BBC have a charter for impartiality, which they broke years ago when they took on the work for Globe International to spread the word on climate change, thus blocking all the many studies which cast doubt on it. I have no idea who can report breach of charter let alone who to, but no one has despite being reported recently in the Daily Telegraph. If I could and didn't cost anything I would do it personally simply as I have enough legal experience to present a reasonable case and the time to do so. Now they are openly associating with the very business they are promoting then it is pretty much like insurance companies setting fire to their own premises to make a profit on the insurance. If you promote a cause while posing (figuratively and legally) as an independent which you also invest in there are many legal terms for that, and I'll let others suggest them for me for a change.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jul 28 2011 04:07 PM

It now seems the NASA satellites have at last confirmed what was obvious from 100 years of temperatures, there is no measurable positive cloud feedback from rising CO2, meaning the very small rise since 1850 does indeed indicate it can't add more heat than it traps through evaporating more sea to become clouds, which do the lion's share (95%) of keeping the planet 33C higher than space. We'd all be dead without it. CO2 is responsible for 1C, doubling would have added 1C more with no feedback, and being 50% higher than 1850 already has not produced any more than 0.5C as the temperature was already rising. The IPCC predictions factored in up to 6C by 2100, putting a safe level at 2C which will itself now be hard to manage at the current rate.

I am a realist, I abhor predictions in open systems as they can't be made and never should be, whether climate, economics or crystal balls (ours excepted). Sometimes you just have to wait and see. And as claimed by many scientists including Philip Stott who is so talented the BBC use him as a resident science expert, you can't have a greenhouse effect in an open system, as only glass can trap heat and not gas. This affirms the very basic theory and means unlike the stories in the media CO2 simply lets most of the heat through. The spectral absorption spectrum is so small anyway (meaning it only responds to infra red radiation in a few frequencies, a small fraction of the total) that it could rise in far greater amounts and still reach its saturation limit soon afterwards becoming unable to affect temperatures at all beyond a certain point they don't yet know but is clearly being approached already.

NASA report
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Aug 19 2011 08:50 PM

This is the first and doubtless only time the green climate movement have given me a laugh. We may be destroyed by aliens as we're emitting too much CO2. The added cream on the cake is that it's actually been reported by what's considered by themselves (not me mind you) as a serious newspaper. If people thought they were before a good many won't from now! I reckon a few fence-sitters may actually be pushed off it after this classic too, which can only help world sanity.

"Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists
Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report"


Aliens will destroy the naughty human emitters!
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Aug 31 2011 05:47 PM

Logic is as good a tutor for any subject as long as you know enough to follow the basics. So recently it occurred to me what if the temperature had risen exactly the same amount as in the highest estimated hockey stick graph (there were two, the lower one was discarded for 'watering down the message' as I just discovered) but CO2 had not?

The other side of the same coin had just surfaced, what if CO2 increased and the temperature did not? Well that turned out to be a lot closer to reality than my ideal scenario. Mann's diagram relied heavily on tree ring data, which is probably the most marginal possible method possible and argued by some too vague to be used at all. It turns out the logic won as guess what, increased CO2 alone causes some trees to grow more (who'd have thought it?) so when you measure wider rings you are both measuring temperature plus growth solely from increased CO2 (I haven't tracked down the likely proportions, but appears to be pretty similar), so actually doubling the apparent temperature by attributing 100% of the growth to increased temperature when in fact a good deal was later shown to be due to increased CO2 alone.

This also has been borne out in standard practice of increasing CO2 in market gardening to 2000ppm to raise growth and tested in two separate university experiments in the last couple of years somewhere in rural England by memory. All they now need is a study to tease out the genuine amount of growth distributed between CO2 and temperature increases and adjust all the existing graphs accordingly. And if so, would they replace them at the IPCC?


"Experimental work has strongly demonstrated the positive response of photosynthesis and plant water use efficiency to increasing CO2 concentration [ e.g. Strain and Cure 1985; Bazzaz 1990; Mooney et al 1991; Idso 1992; Korner and Arnone 1992; Norby et al 1992; Polley et a 1993; Wullscheger et al 1995)] and the negative response of stomatal conductance of plant leaves [Woodward 1987; Beerling and Woodward 1993; van de water et al 1994]. For example, by studying a number of C3 and C4 species, Polley et al 1993 showed that both plant water use efficiency and biomass increased with increasing ambient CO2 concentration. This led to the idea that CO2 fertilization may be evaluated by measuring plant water use efficiency."

Report summary
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Sep 04 2011 06:27 PM

“Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh, yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have.”

"plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

"Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline)"

"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"

This is all from the UEA Climate team, mainly discussing climate reports which were submitted to and subsequently used by the IPCC to create world policy. I knew the well reported material but this goes way beyond that.
My only other question here now is as they've been caught confessing to 'tweaking' their data to fit by eavesdropping, how much more has contributed to the figures the vast majority of people worldwide accept as genuine?

Full report
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Sep 10 2011 05:08 PM

Sorry, weather's got me in a brain storm/funny mood. I just thought we could get rid of a lot more CO2 if we doubled the concentration in our canned sodas and beers. It may mean more sturdy aluminum cans but we've gotten good at recycling/conserving that resource. So a little more C per can might assuage the extra Al per can.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Sep 16 2011 06:54 PM

The media have been very clever in providing balance from scientists who disagree with global warming theory by wheeling out the same handful of names every time they want to show them. This deliberately creates the impression no one else does, but although I knew of many more who do someone has just collected a page of PhDs in the area who have openly done so, and been collectively ignored for doing so.

The main question this raises is how can they all be wrong when they are at least as qualified as their opponents? And if they both claim to be right then surely the science is in so much dispute it's impossible to say it's yet known?

List of quotes
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Sep 18 2011 06:40 PM

Last week the 2010-11 sea level figures were posted by NASA (ie no controversy there), and unlike any time in my limited reading of such figures, it fell twice as much as it had the previous year and every year before it for centuries. The 3mm annual rise has been a standard feature, and one which to me killed the AGW argument stone dead as that was part of a 22,000 recovery from the last small ice age.

The trend was slowing, from a little over 3mm a year to 3mm in about 2008, as consistent with the total curve to zero. As sea expands from warming and ice melts then had both been increasing then so would the sea. It's the easiest indicator as varies less than ice and many times less than temperature. NASA however had to put a spin on it due to this fact, that the heat had evaporated so much sea as rain it had removed it onto land. Now my geography lessons taught me about the water (and carbon) cycle, and it takes around a week for flooded areas to drain back to the sea through rivers, springs and evaporation. A year of sodden ground is physically impossible, it has nowhere to be stored as gravity has to return it to sea level from higher ground.

So imagine my surprise when the envisat satellite results were released a week later, and don't just show a decline for a year but the last two, a total of 10mm since 2009. As yet NASA and their friends haven't replied anywhere to this, but unlike the dodgy temperature records which I've already demonstrated can be selected and adjusted to look any way they need to, these are raw figures direct from the source before a single academic could rewrite them.

So the sole explanation is flooding, although a fall in temperatures and an overall stable ice sheet (even the arctic has suddenly started freezing at record speed, long before the normal end of summer) would be the regular reasons, meaning it must be an unprecedented amount of flooding combined with as yet unknown methods of holding that water back from returning to the sea. It is tantamount to a doctor saying the patient is getting over an infection even though their temperature is rising. There may be an extremely rare and obscure reason for it for a very short time but not over a longer period. Some phenomena are directly linked, and just as a raised temperature in an infection means the germs are still being fought, a falling sea level has to mean a falling temperature over a longer period than a week or two. This is two years.

Two year sea level fall
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Sep 19 2011 02:42 AM

So, David Bowie's "Man Who Fell to Earth" is a true story? Is that where the water is going, stolen by aliens? (TeeHee)

Actually, can a more highly concentrated atmosphere of CO2 contain more dissolved H2O in it than a less densely concentrated one? That figure is relevant. A quick balance of replacing O2 with CO2 would mean less space for H2O to fill (as long as the atmosphere volume is constant) If my balance is correct, a higher Atm CO2 level would mean the oceans should rise on a decreased atmospheric ability to hold gaseous H2O. Ah, the double whammy!
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Sep 19 2011 08:58 AM

I nearly (but not quite) get that, as the IPCC story (as it hasn't ever happened before so only clutching at straws to guess what'll happen as CO2 steadily rises) goes that rising temperatures will evaporate more sea, putting the water in the atmosphere as clouds and thus providing an effective greenhouse gas. But this has had a 50% rise to see the result and the temperature has clearly not shown any additional rise which would have been expected.

So if the sea level were to evaporate then that would surely balance a rise from added heat, and depending on the overall exchange will either see a net rise or fall in level. However despite the statement the sea is expected to create more clouds from evaporation they have never referred to the consequent effect on sea level if it does. I'm only an interested observer and I picked it up.

If I follow you correctly you're saying rising CO2 should block water vapour in the atmosphere and thus keep it in the sea, raising levels, while NASA's AQUA satellite showed CO2 did exactly that, ie replaced H20 with CO2, actually reducing the greenhouse effect, which was not what they expected.

The end result so far though is not theory but observation, and the sea level has fallen quite a lot. Is this consistent with your equations?
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Sep 19 2011 09:26 AM

Note the caveat I included (the volume of the atmosphere remains the same). If the volume of the atmosphere increases, it could hold more CO2 and more H2O. One way to draw data on the atmosphere volume is to determine if the low Earth Orbit ISS is experiencing more drag than was calculated to effect it twenty years ago when it was designed. A greater atmosphere volume would also indicate that the average temperature of the air is increased.

Was it the concentration of CO2 bit that you didn't follow fully? Here's perhaps a better (well, different) way of stating the issue. I do not have exact physical constants in front of me so remember what is important in this is relative concentrations. For a given volume of standard air, say one cubic foot, at STP can hold 1,000 molecules of H2O. If we remove some of the 8% component of that volume that is O2 down to 7% and replace it with enough gaseous CO2 (increasing the CO2% from 9% to 10%), what will the effect on ability to hold H2O be? I've conjectured above that 100% relative humidity would then represent a lower number of total H2O molecules in that 1 cubic foot )for arguments sake say 900 molecules of H2O). In an open system with unbounded volume we wouldn't have to remove the O2 to get room for the CO2, but its ability to hold moisture will definitely change (because humidity is a local phenomena) and standard values for those parameters should be calculated and demonstrated.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Sep 19 2011 12:03 PM

It seems to work, but seems to be one of the three alternatives either expected or occurred.

1) CO2 adds to the greenhouse gases with no associated changes- the atmosphere being open expands to include it.

2) CO2 replaces O2 and H20, as if in a closed system.

3) CO2 causes H2O to increase and join it, the only scenario to cause increased warming.

As the atmosphere is an open system I'd assume that CO2 adds, but your replacing theory is what the satellite found although NASA also expected an open system where the two greenhouses gases (major and minor in this case) joined forces.

So if I do follow your reasoning correctly, you are expecting the CO2 to knock out the other gases, which indeed has happened, and as a result actually reduced the greenhouse effect for each H2O molecule replaced.

I am guessing you're a scientist, my science stopped when the maths became too tough and had no choice to switch to words rather than numbers to complete my education. I cannot handle equations beyond the most basic, if presented in a diagram can do better if simple but is really like trying to read three different pages at the same time in a foreign language I know a little of. I do go looking for friendly scientists to analyse some of the raw data I read to check if it's really what it looks like, and it usually is so tend to find even without knowing the minutiae within the details such as these the big picture remains identical, in this case falling sea level must mean falling temperature.

While you're here and on the subject the CO2 rise is the real issue. That is a brand new phenomenon in modern times, and because the hockey stick was produced (along with three other universities who produced something else for the same period) to fit the rise, the genie was out of the bottle (except one which denies your wishes rather than grants them). A vandal genie so to speak. The IPCC took the reins and employed the same universities to tell them (as if they could) what would the effect on the climate be from the continued rise, at least till 2200.

This process began in around 1990, and 20 years later the fall in temperature, erratic short term but stable long term ice caps, growing polar bear population and probably most of all beyond temperature falling sea level were not part of the predictions. They all expected the arctic to be ice free in summer by now, Britain to be snow free in some, loss of Kilimanjaro and Himalayan glaciers (nothing significant there), and no drop in temperature or sea level en route. Any child would have questioned the wisdom of predicting the effect of an unprecedented change introduced into the atmosphere on the climate given it alone gave rise to chaos theory and is an open non-linear system. Previous models were for long term forecasts only, up to 6 months, and they were rarely any more reliable than tossing a coin. To expect this to be extended centuries ahead with no previous data to go on (always the best way to see the future) they were quite happy to create programs regardless, knowing by the time the results were in with enough to assess their accuracy they'd be retired. They couldn't lose, and as a result had no personal interest in the consequences either way as they couldn't be tested before they'd be long gone.

This year more and more pillars of global warming have fallen than ever before. The collective indicators imply the temperature and associated major features are doing what they always have, minor variations within major long term (22,000 year or so) cycles and PDOs and nina/nino cycles which can be seen to have caused a peak in 1998 because they always do. Al Gore's lecture last week blaming every single problem in the world (including the Arab spring, honestly!) on AGW had made the fatal error of induction (he's not the brightest) by blaming the small local events on a greater one which as already described is far from certain. The only certainty is rising CO2, but the current effects are within previously normal variations and only became analysed as the CO2 rose and assumed to be doing something to them. Unless the temperature had already risen way above the expected 0.5C at current CO2 levels then anything under 2C is fine according to the IPCC. It won't even get half way by 2100 now, the graph is half done and would need a new input to arise from nowhere to get it to ramp up more than half way through the process which no one expected or would expect.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Oct 09 2011 04:58 PM

The IPCC position on solar changes are thus: "Changes in solar output over time can only be minimal and in no way affect the climate to a noticeable degree".

OK, in fact the genuine situation was that solar changes were little understood outside a small group of experts who had a purely academic interest in it before the CO2 debate, besides some making a fortune using it to predict the weather for private businesses, but as the world only listen to the IPCC that is the state of the science.

I have just heard the UK Met Office, who provide some of the data for the IPCC have veered off that path and in a paper soon to be published in the only instrument available (by serious organisations anyway), Nature Magazine, have stated:

"The warning coincides with research from the Met Office suggesting Europe could be facing a return of the “little ice age” that gripped Britain 300 years ago, causing decades of bitter winters.

The prediction, to be published in Nature, is based on observations showing a slight fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation, which over a long period may trigger mini ice ages in Europe."

Here it is, enjoy!

This actually means either the IPCC or Met Office are wrong. Take your pick.

Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Oct 15 2011 12:43 AM

Satguru,

I don't think any evidence would be enough for some to accept ACC. Your quote at the bottom from Mike Hulme needs looking at though. You impugne the honesty of tens of thousands of Scientists who got into that extremely well payed area of climate change. Most scientists get into low paid work for the betterment of mankind. Some do sell out to cigarette companies and oil and mining companies, but not the vast majority. However, you believe the Oil and mining companies who are likely to lose TRILLIONS if we convert to a green future are all pure at heart and concerned with mankind over their own wealth. That dog just don't hunt mate.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Oct 15 2011 09:37 AM

Obviously I've been asked this question before, and there is a two part answer. Firstly I'd happily accept global warming (sorry, climate change is an abbreviation of 'climate change through global warming' and without one the other doesn't exist) if indeed there was any. That's actual measurable change far beyond the previous cycles.

Currently the worst case scenario (ignore the slopes as they are different whoever measures them) is the temperature has risen 0.8C in 150 years. Besides the error margins being around that figure themselves so technically such a small amount may be little more than noise, in itself is not remarkable. There's a 22,000 year rise since the last ice age, when the sea level rose many feet a century when it turned around, and until we complete the cycle (they go back as far as life on earth, millions of years) of course we must continue to rise overall. Now had CO2 remained fairly stable then every single climatologist would have agreed with me. But as it shot up, inexplicably regardless what we are told, they started to worry. But coincidence of events is not any more than the earliest observation stage in science, and if you assume cause and effect you then waste decades and billions looking for connections even though they may never have existed.

The second part is that not every measurement agrees with the statistics. Average temperature is a concept and not a measurable reality, so instead they use anomalies, variations from a fixed average, which irons out the vast gaps between thermometers and urban heat islands. How many people knew the hockey stick was one of four separate graphs submitted to the IPCC, two others were similar but not so extreme and one was random. The IPCC chose the striking one (although in science and sport scoring you eliminate the two extremes and take the average of the middle when faced with conflicting versions) and based their whole policy on it ever since. No one here has the time or patience for a full on essay on how hard it is to measure large scale temperature, but suffice to say the sharp rise in 1979 coincided exactly with the arrival of satellite measurements while the earlier ones were a mixture of thermometer land and sea readings and proxy ones, the tree rings actually falling while the others rose. Do you have enough confidence in the system to commit trillions of pounds worldwide to stop something that's barely even happened according to the worst case data?

As for post-normal science, I read the article, the interview and the history. It's very simple. The view is if the cause is important enough then the actual truth doesn't matter as long as you can persuade people you are right. No thank you.

---------------------------

Your standard view about 'big oil' does not acknowledge any actual market forces or economics. Big oil are behind this almost as much as Al Gore. Two reasons again, one is so simple anyone can get it. If you restrict energy use the price goes up. There's only so much oil left, double the price and they get twice as much for nothing. Thumbs up for big oil.
The second is so complex even with the simplified version few people can follow it. Carbon credits are given to oil companies and the like, they don't use them all and sell the remainder at the end of the year and make billions. You'd need a PhD in economics to know how these things work but again energy companies profit massively the way they are currently set up, as had they run them the way you'd expect they indeed would have been opposed.

You really need to stop looking at the obvious and simplistic explanations when it comes to the economics behind this system. They are totally independent to AGW and irrelevant to it. I'm happy to discuss economics till the cows come home as I actually studied it, but wittering on for days about interested parties based on complex market movements and equations cannot affect the actual point that whoever looks at it at any angle AGW is probably an assumption based on a statement by Arrhenius, supported by a few lab experiments in a closed system, and then extrapolated into a future beyond our lifetimes with a +/- 400% error margin. You don't need to be an oil magnate to doubt the validity of that.
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Oct 15 2011 10:27 PM

So the scientists have still decided to become corrupt all at the same time.
Posted by: george48

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Oct 15 2011 11:01 PM

Not necessarily,scientists are as equally as like to be tempted to corruption as are other people,unfortunately the picture of the scientist as a standard bearer for the truth and nothing but the truth is not borne out by the cluster $%^& that is climate change.
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Oct 15 2011 11:12 PM

So we trust the scientists to find cures for illnesses and many other good things to society and trust our children with the medical people but when it comes to this issue which has more evidence than smoking or the ozone layer we are sceptical. It is coincidental that this issue would cause us to take some financial hits and to change our way of dealing with the planet and doing nothing would be much easier.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Oct 16 2011 02:22 PM

Not at all. Scientists, especially the consensus, has got it wrong time and time again. From the world being flat and the centre of the solar system to the cause of stomach ulcers. They are human, limited and when they make mistakes (eg the IPCC reports) they make big ones.

OK, the only potential cause of 'runaway climate change' (Skeptical Science's latest catchphrase) is positive water vapour feedback. The 33C greenhouse effect was said to be 1C from CO2 at 260ppm, back in 1850, and a doubling with no feedback would contribute a doubling to add another 1C at 560ppm. All additional rise would be due to positive feedback.

This is an experiment, it's run half its distance, the current rise at 390ppm is .8C, on an already rising trend. That means the rise from CO2 would be between .5 and .6C maximum. That is both observation and attribution. No paper ever said the feedback from increased ocean evaporation would be delayed, so I'd say the scientists have lost the ball. How can a single observer, in or out of the science world can miss that?

Add the latest sea level fall, it's fallen as much in two years than it rose in more than the previous three. That was never expected either and is far easier to measure than temperature and ice coverage. All the additional signs of a lack of warming have been explained away as if nothing that happens in the long or short term (regardless of how it diverged from their expectations) can break their faith. That is not science and I hope a lot of people get the sack over the next few decades as they have let the world down big time.
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Oct 17 2011 11:15 PM

A lot of people would be nearly all climate scientists who are not as smart as Satguru. Plus all reputable Science organisations and NASA etc. Lord Monckton is also smarter than all the scientists. There is not one peer reviewed article published to support the deniers. You could make history Satguru and be the first. But of course peer review is a conspiracy by all the scientists and around we go again.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Oct 19 2011 08:22 AM

You are being had mountaingoat. The number of scientists who both disagree and have data published supporting it are in the thousands, but because the media generally support the theory then you and most other people don't know about it. Add to that the vast number who work for organisations where they'd be sacked or demoted if they spoke out and you have a political situation and not a scientific one.
Only yesterday the psychologist Steven Pinker was interviewed about genetic influences and how despite the research demonstrating it most scientists avoided any material showing children were mainly influenced by their genes and not the environment. This was a political movement as much as any other, which denied and suppressed the truth for 'a greater good'. Post-normal science again.

There's the petition project where over 1000 scientists signed to say on record that there is not sufficient evidence for AGW. Many great names agree with me and not with you who are equally qualified, that alone means any claims of a scientific consensus can't be right, they are all there and can't be claimed as a result.
Dissenting scientists Oddly this is the first time I've ever seen a Wikipedia page marked for deletion. That doesn't look good from here.

Only yesterday a paper was published correlating the temperature with sunspot activity, one of a number which arrived this year. Even the UK Met Office now predict a cooling period due to reduced solar radiation. Don't worry about me being smart, all I do is listen to both sides, and rely on their smartness. Like a jury member. If you prefer to rely on computer programs for your trust then go ahead, but they are not based on anything real, only present records are and so far they show very little besides a suggestion and potential correlation between CO2 rising and the temperature, while it's also possible as a number of scientists say that CO2 has been released by the ocean after it warmed, so skewing the data. Bear in mind nearly all the apparent warming and CO2 rise has been measured since 1980, the year measurements were made by satellite. This alone means anything before that was less reliable and possibly not comparable.

These are all reasonable doubts, I accept most people see them as irrelevant and unimportant but when your liberty rests on the finding of such doubts in a criminal trial they suddenly become the most important things in your life. Please look at both sides and study the data not on the TV before making your conclusions.
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Oct 20 2011 02:22 AM

We will have to agree to disagree. I am going to have a bex and a lie down lol.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Oct 21 2011 10:53 AM

Wow, Berkeley University have just released four papers measuring world temperature. None of it says anything new or reportable, indeed the actual articles written worldwide treat it as a confirmatory piece used to quash any final doubts we are wrecking the climate and the planet itself.

However, had they actually read one of the four papers rather than the summaries they were given, they would have seen that despite it measuring temperatures, one paper actually explains the possible reasons for the rise:

“Such changes may be independent responses to a common forcing (e.g.greenhouse gases); however, it is also possible that some of the land warming is a direct response to changes in the AMO region. If the long-term AMO changes have been driven by greenhouse gases then the AMO region may serve as a positive feedback that amplifies the effect of greenhouse gas forcing over land. On the other hand, some of the long-term change in the AMO could be driven by natural variability, e.g. fluctuations in thermohaline flow. In that case the human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”

Having spent years learning about newly discovered solar and oceanic influences on the climate, far far more complex than the simplistic 'CO2 in- heat out' formula used by these clearly superior minds, it seems one university has finally began to catch up. It's a shame the media prefer not to mention it while trumpeting everything else in it totally out of its actual context.

Now the media (a list is given in the article linked) have been caught cheating, imagine how widespread it is across the board and how they have deliberately reported what they want to say and not what is actually happening. I'd recommend a mass emailing of The Guardian for claiming this removes all doubts about AGW as it actually does the exact opposite, and if that is the case then I am happy and accurate in saying they are liars and they have been caught out.

Full article

So if a respected university team of climatologists have finally concluded the ocean and sun may in fact have caused most of the observed warming in the last century or so yet every single outlet has only reported the warming and still blames you and me, isn't there a problem here? A very big problem?

Edited to include verbatim quote. Full paper available here, quote on P12 Full study


Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Oct 30 2011 05:43 PM

Wow, the withholding of the vital conclusion of the Berkeley report was bad enough, today, the joint author Judith Curry (I don't know why it took over a week but glad it was reported at all) disowned the report as Dr Muller released it before it was complete. So besides the conclusion being oceanic currents having the chance of influencing temperature more than man which not a single media outlet (still) has reported, it turns out not only was their own hockey stick measuring a rise fully double of the IPCC since 1900, but the last ten years had been averaged twice to removed the 2005-10 figures altogether.

Luckily Dr Muller had left a reversible equation in his method, so the GWPF who are set up to keep a watch on these people independently just did just that, and found using the raw data contained in the report that there has been no rise since 2000. Unlike previous refutations, these temperatures weren't measured independently to do no more than confuse the issue, they used his own figures but undid the little tricks he carried out to hide them.

There is a small list of detractors on this thread who I'm sure mainly still follow it, and today's question based on this latest scandal is what will it take before it casts doubt on the genuineness of the scientific material behind this claim? How many more instances of hidden data, altered data and blatant admissions 'we'll just have to make it up as usual' (CRU emails) before someone else starts wondering why they'd need to behave like this if they had a good case?
Story here
Posted by: habitsowner

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Oct 30 2011 07:42 PM

Thanks both of you for your linking this story to us. Now maybe my little sister will get off my case and realize I know a bit of what I speak. We've been having "climate change" ever since there was a planet, I feel, and most certainly have been having "warming" since the last ice age, interspersed with some mini-ice ages. Between the two, I'll take the "warming"!
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Oct 31 2011 08:39 AM

Thanks habitsowner, and in fact although the media have painted any potential warming as a disaster the IPCC 2007 report lists every single benefit I always have, including possibly the most vital fact more people die of cold winters than when it gets warmer, and all the areas able to grow crops that currently can't. The benefits at least even out the problems, and as this warming is only present in their computer models (can you or I notice it even after we've been told? No) then it's simply a pretty expensive thought model.

The killer sentence in the conclusion is if we did nothing worldwide about CO2 emissions then by 2100 (we won't be here to know, so an untestable experiment) we could only be 7 times better off than we are now than 8. No, I couldn't make this stuff up, and it's so remarkable the media steer well clear of it as most readers wouldn't believe it either. The IPCC are actually far more moderate in their conclusions (although not in their projections, which have a 400% -/+ error margin, again not acceptable in science or business) but politicians who can make a fast buck off it, and the media who can write scary stories to sell more papers choose the bits that make their case.

One final example of what this attitude leads to. There is now a 'Climate Change Investment Fund' (and we all thought it was about saving the planet...) which means it is now openly a financial movement at least as much, the BBC invest their pension funds in it, and guess who owns it? One of their own directors.

Now as a legally bound broadcaster to be impartial they effectively stopped challenging climate change in 2007 (I have the memo somewhere), as effectively if they didn't spend hours a week making programmes about melting glaciers and dying penguins their pensions could be worth zip. Now that's not the dictionary definition of impartial to me, quite the opposite. Now whether or not climate change was real wouldn't be affected if people did exploit it, admittedly, but as the potential to make huge sums of money, not in 2100 but a year or two, it has the ability to make many organisations favour the mainstream view even in the face of much new evidence which again goes against the principles of science.

So how a single person can claim it's settled either means they only listen to the media and don't pay any regard to the studies directly which are all here online, or they have a personal reason not to like the BBC. It's a mess and one hopefully more people will get wise to and start wondering if indeed it is as certain as most people tell us.
Posted by: habitsowner

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Oct 31 2011 05:29 PM

It's rather humorous. Would you go to a doctor, for example, that tells you he has a 400 +/- error margin in his diagnosis?

Not me!!!

Lee
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Nov 07 2011 03:34 PM

I posted this the same day in the chat, but hoped the media would do the job they are expected to do and release this paper themselves, but a week later as they haven't it's down to me again.

A two year satellite project sent to measure the exact culprits emitting CO2 and how much by the Japanese Ibuku satellite was completed last week, and a rolling video of the red and green countries per month has also been released along with the cumulative two year diagram, and unanimously discovered the more industrial a country is the more it absorbs carbon, while the least developed and inhabited ones emit the most.

The IPCC now appear to have been created to reduce a non-existent substance, yet only a handful of online enthusiasts are aware of it. This says to me the media are as guilty of selection as any scientist or politician, as if the people were given the information to make an informed decision, they would then know what they could actually vote for and why. So as well as the main new discovery why on earth have the media left this one entirely alone despite the original project being one sympathetic to the cause? They expected to be able to supply more detailed and specific figures of the 'worst offendors', no doubt to persuade more politicians to bring more punitive laws in faster, but were happy to release the full findings with no alteration or censorship when they found the exact opposite to what they were looking for.

So why have the IPCC not been called on this one? To me, their very reason for existence is now in question, yet nothing has happened.

CO2 emitters measured worldwide

"Indeed, the map at which JAXA spokesman Sasano was pointing (see photo above) had been expected by most experts to show that western nations are to blame for substantial increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, causing global warming. But to an officious looking TV interviewer Sasano turned greenhouse gas theory on it’s head."...

...“in the high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere emissions were less than absorption levels.”

Original paper Note red areas coincide with major deserts worldwide.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Nov 10 2011 09:23 PM

I've had to do some research on sea levels this week. It seems like temperatures the figures are not fixed but collect many items and cobble them together to get a rough trend and no more. Besides using floats and satellites this new diagram shows you still have to combine the results of a few satellites as they don't (and can't) read the same, mainly as sea level is an average and varies per point.

But what I'd consider good news for everyone on the planet is the overall direction is now downwards, only since a year ago overall but clearly now unanimous and far more on Envisat which is a pretty important source. I am hoping to see IPCC members and climate change ministers dancing in the street when they find this out, as the one main fear is of rising sea levels, although the most they've managed for thousands of years is 10 inches a century and no different today. So far the only comment I've heard is 'Of course they won't rise steadily, you need much longer to see the trend'. However I've looked back as far as I can and still found no fall longer than a few months. Does anyone think they're being a bit pessimistic here?

10 year sea level figures
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Nov 19 2011 11:54 AM

I have more quotes (with more to follow):

"There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems."


"Many extreme weather and climate events continue to be the result of natural climate variability."

Now if you think these are from the usual oil funded pop-eyed loons, they aren't, they're from the new IPCC report. Makes me think at least.

Summary here

As I've said from day one, the complexity of the present world climate, let alone trying to project it even a day ahead, is phenomenal, and they seem to be affirming this now as the measurable areas are so diverse:

"There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the
magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records
of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of
changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and
thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes."

So floods, one of the bete noirs of CO2phobes is off the agenda. Why? Because after over 20 years of looking, the IPCC says so.

Oh dear, hurricanes as well:

"The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete
understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change,
and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of
any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of
single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging."

Of course they've managed to crowbar in warmer days and higher coastal extreme measurements (the sea level's been rising for 22,000 years, so always would have), but the big guys seem to be falling like dominoes in this. I am not however confident any politicians will look at these, just as they didn't for the previous reports which were all very careful and included many possible benefits from global warming. Nothing should change with another report, however doubtful. But if you use the context here then maybe it's pretty much time to pack up and go home:

"Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios
generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three
decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain."



Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Nov 19 2011 08:48 PM

I live in Alaska, although not on the coast. Still, I believe the reports that there is less ice.

Last summer I went on a short cruise in Prince William Sound on a boat based in Valdez. The captain said he'd never been to a certain little place he took us because it had always before been frozen.

The Northwest Passage now exists.

Recent Huffington Post.

Older Guardian article.

My son works in the fiber optics industry (installation) and assures me the Northwest Passage is now open, which makes all the difference in undersea cables. He was part of this project,

Arctic fiber-optic cable could benefit far-flung Alaskans

TOKYO-LONDON: Polar melt allows route through northwest passage.

which, unfortunately, has been set aside.

Last week we had terrible storms on the west coast, made worse because of the loss of protective coastal ice.

From the Anchorage Daily News:

"A lack of protective, shore-fast sea ice worsened the high-water danger compared to a similarly powerful storm in 1974, forecasters said."

Also see the Washington Post:

“Major differences between the 1974 storm and this upcoming storm include the fact that tides were much greater in the 1974 storm,” NWS said. “However, sea ice extent is currently much lower than it was in 1974, thus providing no protection along the coast and greater fetch.”
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Nov 20 2011 10:42 AM

Ice coverage is a perfect example of the impossible complexity of the climate. The warming is not even, quite the opposite. Therefore despite a very small overall increase, you will always get localised warming and cooling, much as Britain had two of its coldest winters in living memory. But back to your ice, we are in a very long warming trend, the end of an ice age means the melting of up to all polar ice, perfectly naturally. That's going to happen in endless cycles. So although the passage has opened, Arctic ice is around 10% of the total, and for reasons I don't think anyone really understands, is a hotspot, so although is melting faster than usual also freezes faster in winter. It was a month earlier than usual this year for instance.

But the 90% of ice in the Antarctic, that which could make a difference as on land, is not melting overall. The pattern of temperature variations is very localised, and then different on land, sea and air. I haven't checked this story out as it's the first I've heard of it, so will do, but as overall ice is not melting then you can't infer anything from any local variations if the total has not decreased noticeably.

"Since the start of the satellite record, total Antarctic sea ice has increased by about 1 percent per decade. Whether the small overall increase in sea ice extent is a sign of meaningful change in the Antarctic is uncertain because ice extents in the Southern Hemisphere vary considerably from year to year and from place to place around the continent."

NASA report

1% a decade is quite a significant amount, and as contains so much of the world's ice is yet again very inconsistent with an overall warming to anyone who expects the opposite to happen. If nothing else, it does demonstrate it's far too complicated to really know.
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Nov 20 2011 11:43 AM

Well, the title of the thread is, "Alaskan ice ignores global warming."

I agreed with you when you started the discussion, but observation and cogitation since then have persuaded me otherwise. Alaskan ice is unarguably decreasing.

"Global warming melts Alaskan ice" is more like it.

Also, at the beginning of the thread, I had misunderstood a fellow FunTrivian and unintentionally misrepresented his opinion.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Nov 20 2011 12:16 PM

I could have transferred everything else over to a new thread had I realised that was the first in dozens of similar reports making the picture extremely confused and confusing, at the least. Also bear in mind that report was a few years ago and ice is extremely variable in the short term as the IPCC now agree with, but was still absolutely correct for the data provided.

If it was possible I could have had the bulk of the thread moved to a general one, but at the start I simply had no idea how the studies would keep on coming and if nothing else provides me with the best filing system when I frequently need to find something, and hopefully for anyone else interested in the subject.

As for global warming melting Alaskan ice, what do you think is causing the Antarctic to grow?

(if a mod can change the thread title to 'New global warming data' then it will reflect the following material better, thanks!)
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Nov 20 2011 04:55 PM

I really don't have any idea about Antarctica. You have probably read this Discovery article and this older one from National Geographic.

I cannot be certain--and wonder if anyone can be--about the causes of the loss of ice in Alaska. I take a somewhat Randian view of government, which predisposes me to doubt official reports, but I believe scientists who are immersed in this research genuinely believe people are the cause.

Very simply, I don't know enough to have an intelligent opinion. It's interesting to follow, though.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Nov 20 2011 09:02 PM

You are absolutely right to doubt official reports. I do have contacts at a level that confirms that, and the first rule is to protect themselves, and then the people close to them. No different to what Jesus preached against in the bible. The people come pretty well at the end of that list.

As far as the National Geographic article is concerned, all I'll say is measure the present and let the future take care of itself. The only way to test their theory is wait a few decades and we can't really afford the taxation which already assumes the event is happening now. Buying a pig in a poke is not for intelligent people, and you don't pay to prevent a problem which even the worst case scenarios can't see happening for 20 years minimum, after trillions would have been extracted and spent on basically subsidies to whoever is lucky enough to get them. That means mainly energy companies (including what people refer to as 'oil', they are not oil companies, they will operate every single type and very much in favour of the latest subsidised green energy projects), rich landowners renting their acres out for wind farms, big investors (a 52.5% guaranteed ten year bond for wind farms), third world government ministers (they get it for the same stuff there but not exactly thorough in checking any work actually gets carried out)as well as being paid not to drill for more oil which keeps the price up for the oil companies, and of course scientists.

Ordinary people cannot participate, as it takes the life of a solar panel to get your money back on average, and the subsidies are going to be reduced and stop that as well. Only a small group of people end up sharing these trillions worldwide as long as the rules are imposed by law, while to what I'd consider simple logic would dictate until either something had already begun to happen (the current changes are not enough, if you know where to read officially) or guaranteed to from past experience (we have none, it's never happened before).

The scientists however do not agree, I've mentioned the Petition Project already, plus a site I probably linked which has statements from hundreds of scientists who are equally qualified who do not believe people are the cause. But if your bosses do then 99% will keep silent, and therefore appear to believe. When they retire, however, as a few have, or leave, they've said they basically make it up as they go along. A musician interviewed on the BBC recently was asked about her post-doctoral research on climate change, and (unexpectedly) said 'that was why I left to do music, they can basically get whatever figures they need'.

That sort of open door to imagination is not for me.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Nov 22 2011 12:53 PM

Although Christmas isn't for over a month, and my birthday a month later, out of the blue more climategate emails have arrived, with 220,000 more in the pipeline.

Here's the first new quote, which to me makes the sum total of the others like a small starter for an eight course meal.

"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary"

They say we cherry pick? If this isn't dishonesty of the worst sort (as clearly this instruction was never followed), and indicates nothing less than a plan to present a single result then what on earth is?

"I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run."

"It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group."

"Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC"

Update, I've been reading these all evening, but the depth they have dug the holes this time for themselves would put any jury in the world in readiness to convict with such open confessions. If anyone trusts this shower after such new quotes as this:

Phil Jones reveals the Department of Energy supports hiding temperature data: 'Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data'

then can you lend me a few thousand till next week?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Nov 22 2011 10:38 PM

This deserves a post of its own:

"I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about."

Anyone unfamiliar with the details, Steve Macintyre, a Canadian statistician, spent two years reconstructing the program Michael Mann used to create his famous temperature diagram used by the IPCC and Al Gore to make world policy based on a sharp rise in temperature in the last few decades. He found any data run on it turned out a hockey stick as that was the shape it was designed to produce. Now it seems his own colleague has tried it and admitted that was exactly what happened.

I've been reading these for hours and is like a confessional.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Nov 23 2011 02:24 PM

I've read plenty of articles on it since yesterday, this sums it up the best so far Forbes summary

A very simple question, since the CRU collectively refer to man made warming as 'the cause', and emails indicate they habitually filter their data to support it, what possible benefit could there be for them for any scientific experiment to come out one way or another?

Things are beginning to fall into place. Here's the quote about NASA's Antarctic ice figures I just found:

"Since the start of the satellite record, total Antarctic sea ice has increased by about 1 percent per decade. Whether the small overall increase in sea ice extent is a sign of meaningful change in the Antarctic is uncertain because ice extents in the Southern Hemisphere vary considerably from year to year and from place to place around the continent."

Now this looked majorly weird as how can 90% of the world's ice be growing consistently if the planet is warming?

Here's the answer:

Email 0071 from Michael Mann] pointed out to him that we certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do (this is the question he asked everyone). There is very little information at all in the Southern Hemisphere on which to base any conclusion.

So I told him that of course the answer to that question is *no* and it would be surprising if anyone answered otherwise. But, as I proceeded to point out, that’s the wrong question. I pointed out that a far more sensible question is, “do we know the relative temperature anomaly for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE to within that accuracy, and that we almost certainly do know that.


So the Antarctic which measures the temperature naturally by ice growing and shrinking says it's getting colder, yet the temperature graphs say it's getting warmer, then if they exclude half the planet which isn't then that's why the two scenarios differ. That was such a major mystery I have now discovered the reason.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Dec 03 2011 11:54 AM

I'd say this is interesting. I've always heard of the solar activity/temperature correlation, mainly found by Svensmark and dismissed by the IPCC as a minor effect. But when I found a graph and then looked for more the fit is incredible. By coincidence the CO2 has risen on a roughly similar line, easy to confuse some but unless solar activity also affects CO2, or even CO2 affects solar (it wouldn't surprise me if someone did) but if you look at the three together one does not need ninas and ninos to explain the divergence while the other does. Also any weather specialist will know the ocean releases CO2 when it gets warmer, so if there's a delay from heat to CO2 as well then all three can be explained.

Why haven't the IPCC taken a serious look at this correlation? I do know for a fact that the temperature rise/CO2 rise connection was an argument from ignorance, ie they thought they'd eliminated everything else and that's all that was left. That was before Svensmark's findings, surely science is supposed to include new material?

diagram

all explained here very clearly

full equations

Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Dec 05 2011 10:32 AM

The last climategate produced about 1000 emails, the new has 5000 so may be quite busy here for a while. Here we have pages showing his fellow scientists were just as concerned about Michael Mann's hockey stick diagram as many outsiders are. Some of the terminology explaining exactly how is beyond outsiders to comprehend, but can be translated if someone here can, but the overall theme is they think he's pretty well up to something. But this quote is pretty clear to all.


#4133 Johnathan Overpeck – IPCC review.
what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm)the globe actually got.

[and later]
Unsatisfying, perhaps, since people will want to know whether 1200 AD was warmer than today, but if the data doesn’t exist, the question can’t yet be answered. A good topic for needed future work.


What's that, he didn't really know? If his peers knew it why didn't the IPCC?


It's all here
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Dec 06 2011 02:15 AM

I found the graph you posted on the 3rd quite telling. Since our transportation swiched to internal combustion machines at the turn of the 20th C., Average temperature has largely fallen below the sunspot activity while the time period we relied on horses showed the temp to exceed the sunspot value. One might infer that if we had not switched methods of transport and all else remained the same, the average temperature could very well have greatly exceeded what we measure now. Meaning our carbon footprint due to burning fossil fuels is far better for the CO2 levels in the atmosphere than relying on hays and grains would be.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Dec 12 2011 09:50 PM

Two classic video interviews show you don't need to be a scientist to understand the climate figures. These Greenpeace activists interviewed don't actually know a single one!

1st interview

2nd interview


Lord Monckton is not a scientist, but simply looked up the figures and then asked people campaigning to stop climate change if they knew them. Nope. These are not random people stopped in the street (who also vote for higher taxes as the governments scare them into it, look at Australia) but Greenpeace activists campaigning for climate action.

This is a perfect demonstration of the heart leading the head, and further still other people's heads leading the hearts of the innocent, which is pure exploitation.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Dec 22 2011 05:05 PM

I studied statistics just enough to know how to present graphs, but not to alter them, and definitely not to work out other people's alterations and work back to the original data. But I'm not a statistician. In the last few weeks a new phenomenon has reached the internet world, the 60 year oceanic cycles. Basically most ocean current cycles have a roughly 60 year period, the end result being a regular warming and cooling cycle.

By taking a 30 year average it means that you are comparing the warm and cold cycles separately, making one basically a function of the other. The point the IPCC chose for their diagram was the exact spot where the cold one ended, making the 30 year periods either side double their slopes each way as a result, which anyone with A level maths could have spotted had they had the additional knowledge of the 60 year cycles. So they used a little known feature of the climate to make nothing look like something. In reality if they'd used the correct 60 year cycle to take in the whole period into account the slopes would have been half the size, and apparently the whole associated temperature rise.

'How can they do that?' I hear you asking. That's a very good question. The simple answer is because those able to spot it do not challenge it as they are all working on the same project. The longer answer is that using graphs and adjustments, especially if the original data is kept under injunction (as is the case in many universities including a failed challenged to one in Pennsylvania this year), areas you want to highlight can be magnified, areas at angles which are too low can be increased (the favoured method), and ultimately inconvenient data can just be removed (eg tree rings from 1978). As without the internet no one on earth outside the community would have access to this material we'd all assume it was the only way it could be read. Nope, the coastguard data is accurate as people's lives depend on it. The earlier material from the 60s and before was as accurate as they could manage given the equipment, as there was no reason not to, and climatology itself only existed in the 70s when the Climate Research Unit was set up at the University of East Anglia. Prior to that this work was done by meteorologists paid for short term forecasts and coastguards who tried to save people's lives. It was only when money and politics became involved that these tricks became the norm if the money was to continue coming in.

Graphs site

This explains very clearly how the graphs would have looked originally compared to the ones the IPCC used (same graphs, same data, one equation less applied only) and exactly how they did it.

If your bank or company you invested in had been found to have done this with their figures to make a profit look twice as good as it really was to attract more investors what would have happened if they were caught? It's never happened in the climate world though.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Dec 25 2011 09:30 AM

To anyone who thinks the climate figures don't quite add up, here's your Christmas present. If anyone thinks they do then this may at least calm their fears about an imminent climate catastrophe.

This email has both a list of accusations and an open admission, made in private but made public. And if there are a few of these found so far already then wouldn't that mean there would be many more we don't know about as well? That's how finding evidence usually works anyway.

"Warmist Ray Bradley: "I am as guilty as the rest--I made up something from a corner of my brain on p.33 of my paleoclimatology book!"

And now in its full context:

"Email 4924

There is another side to this which you don't mention --the first attempt to expand by
factors of 10, different so-called "global temperatures" was in the 1975 GARP report,
Understanding Climatic Change. In that, for the last 1000 years they used Lamb's
eastern European winter severity index. This version then got reproduced and further
mangled in several later publications, as shown in Tom's chapter. I am as guilty as the
rest--I made up something from a corner of my brain on p.33 of my paleoclimatology
book! But I did say schematic...! [Ray Bradley]"

ie: There was an error included in a climate report used to inform the world's scientists and citizens, the group were both aware of them, republished them, and then finally enhanced them to make them appear even more frightening.

"We have to make it scary!", one of my earlier quotes.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Dec 26 2011 09:19 PM

Following the graphs I posted a few days ago I've now found a complete analysis, showing the US temperature data has been run through a formula post-collection that tilts all charts up at one end and down at the other. Dr Tim Ball, one of the top experts, said this is not done in any area of climate science and this is now one of the clearest pieces of evidence yet they are fixing the data.

The fake graphs

Which is why I insist everyone is capable of understanding climate science if someone qualified does the work and presents it to us, and if I am told that a graph should not under any circumstances ever be tweaked once completed then I would normally take that as read. Especially where the formula used creates the exact results the authorities involved are clearly looking for. The phrase that comes up all the time in the second set of emails is 'The Cause'. Now that, to me at least, is not science any more.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jan 07 2012 08:39 PM

Goodness me, while I'm breaking my back here trying to analyse scientific data said scientists are coming out of the woodwork far and wide simply admitting they basically make it up for 'the cause'. Had the media done as much to share this information as I had there would simply be no issue any longer. These are so blatant they are clearly what the mafia calls 'made men', those so high in the organisation they are fireproof and protected by the authorities. But at least we now know:

“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."

Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

-------------------------------

Having read this, can anyone who previously disagreed with me understand why I am doing this and it is not as clear as you thought?
Posted by: Ghosttowner

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jan 08 2012 02:52 PM

Those last comments by so-called "experts" are truly scary! Just a side note, I saw an article today that an icebreaker is rushing to rescue a town in Alaska that is iced in! Hmmmm, seems that the ice in the Arctic is back to normal despite all those alarms from warmists. After they proclaimed that the ice was disappearing, it turned out the satellite measuring it had a mysterious malfuction that discounted most of the ice.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jan 08 2012 04:55 PM

That's interesting, I'd like to see a link for that. The world ice has never shrunk, 90% is at the Antarctic and that is growing at 1% a decade while the Arctic shrunk 2% in 2007 and then as you pointed out has now recovered, and froze at a very fast rate this winter and early by about a month. So although I knew the ice had definitely not shrunk overall (hardly a sign of a global rise in temperature) I didn't realise some of the reports it had shrunk may be wrong as well. It really seems to be unravelling in front of our eyes.
Posted by: nautilator

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jan 09 2012 01:22 PM

It looks like that list isn't yours. Here is a site which has them -- and it cites an old Reddit post as the original source on that list.

This shows that your supposed quote from John Houghton is a fabrication.

I'm curious if any of the other quotes are fabricated or taken out of context. Searching for them only turns up lists of global warming denial quotes.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jan 09 2012 07:33 PM

Unfortunately without the weight of the CIA behind me some evidence on both sides will always fall at the final hurdle, but I do know 100% the Mike Hulme quote and others on post-normal science come from a newspaper interview printed in full on their own website (I expect I linked it somewhere at the time), and others have been in print, such as the Club of Rome 1996 report which was published for public consumption. Then we have the climategate quotes which have never been claimed as false by anyone connected which say the same sort of things about climate modelling as they didn't think anyone was going to hear it.

So basically I can verify enough from their original sources to say that if a few aren't accurate they definitely do reflect the attitude and operation of the IPCC and all below it. Had I not unearthed some absolutely direct quotes such as Ottmar Edenhofer's in a verbatim translation in November 2010 'This is no longer about the environment, it is about economic redistribution', that itself expresses the point that the agenda is now totally out in the open, climate policies are a means to a different end, ie centralised control and taxation. The cause is long gone, the data since the 80s when this was first proposed by a couple of fringe scientists, including Roger Revelle who later changed his mind, has been shown to be so far off the mark the expectations they had then of 7C rises and 20 feet sea level by 2100 now look like a poor science fiction film (actually, it was).

As extrapolating from today's figures shows the sea is heading for a 10 inch rise unless the current reversal goes back to about 8 for the previous century, world ice has just stabilised following the recent Arctic freeze, and the temperature is heading for around a 1C increase as most who still dare to make predictions say the current multidecadal ocean cycles and solar activity mean it's quite likely not to rise at all for 20-30 years. There won't be long left for anything like a whole degree if that's the case.

Overall the current reality is an extremely typical stable climate within normal parameters. Only the CO2 is rising, and the claims made in the 80s and 90s when actually able to check online for myself were so way off the mark I instantly woke up and thought something must be wrong. Unfortunately 10 years of digging since shows such a complete network of interconnected vested interests even if one or two quotes have been invented I am in no doubt the sentiments expressed are genuine, especially as I have heard a good few repeated elsewhere to confirm it was not a single individual (albeit extremely powerful) but whole departments. And would you deliberately name names on your website knowing it wasn't true? It's not a very sensible idea for anyone to risk that.

I linked that site originally but since then they've added these quotes, which was indeed where they came from, but didn't remember to mention it as I'd posted the link earlier already. It's very interesting a newspaper was happy to correct such a quote when claimed to be inaccurate (I've never seen any of the others outside the internet), but actually I wondered myself, as he did refer to the 100% genuine quote by the late Stephen Schneider, as copied from it here:

In fact, his view on the matter of generating scare stories to publicise climate change is quite the opposite. "There are those who will say 'unless we announce disasters, no one will listen', but I'm not one of them," Sir John told The Independent.]

The full quote goes:

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Now how that got to become Sir John Houghton may have been Chinese Whispers, but then again he did know the attitude existed and happy to state although he did not agree others did (and most definitely still do, including Mike Hulme who said more or less the same thing in his interview). It's all based on the theory of post-normal science, a modern rewrite of Machiavelli where the end justifies the means. It is not in any question this is certainly how some of the IPCC providers work as they have said so, and have no reason to expect any others within it not to follow otherwise they would probably be replaced.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jan 26 2012 09:16 PM

Satguru, I thought you might appreciate this opinion expressed by ex-Senator Rick Santorum in the Florida Republican Party Primary debate tonight on CNN. He called out former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and ex-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney as having bought into and succumbed to the Global Warming Hoax. It was the next to last thing said as the closing statement by any of the candidates. A position which should make many remember it.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Jan 27 2012 08:35 PM

Glad to hear it, sadly it looks like popularism is going to trump policies yet again with the selection, but I'd spotted that months ago and both of them have a web page on an environmental group's site showing their long record of changing their mind every few months when it suited them. if you can do it on one topic you will do it on most. Ron Paul and Santorum have never changed their positions from day one, and again represents their personal natures. I can only hope a few viewers appreciate it and realise they are literally the only two top politicians in the western world with such an opinion, none of ours do here or in Australia, although Canada have pulled out of Kyoto it wasn't to do with the science but a political move probably more based on dwindling funds. Those two candidates are the last hope for the forseeable future of a voice on the UN to challenge this utter nonsense.

When you see these studies I've added here over the last few years and put them all together, plus the rest I haven't included, it is impossible to accept that the tiny changes since 1850 mean a thing, and would all be passed over should the CO2 not risen suddenly. My latest investigation has been into computer models and discovered the whole IPCC existence is not based on current and past measurements but long-term projections created by programmers who have never seen CO2 above the present figure. Needless to say in the 20 years or so since they began, to quote Kevin Trenberth at the very top,

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***


Had their private convos not been cyber-eavesdropped we'd have assumed they were in a consensus. Nothing of the sort. If those at the top have their doubts, then so we all should.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jan 28 2012 08:36 PM

Anyone fancy a huge dose of reality? About 20 years ago the UN produced a series of projections for temperature at different levels of CO2. They couldn't have been more specific, and despite this never having happened in our history till now, were confident their paper calculations then run through a computer were good enough.

Now we are two decades later we have the real data to compare. The only question is how long will it have to take before they diverge before anyone actually notices? (I noticed years ago, hence my mission to share it as far as possible).

Bottom line, our temperature is now below what they forecast with NO rise in CO2. So how can the two be connected? Anyone?

2011 real figures vs IPCC projection

So while scientists not working for big government continue to turn out data saying 'nothing's happened' how long can it be that big government can convince nearly everyone it is? If the papers and TV actually published graphs like this then pretty quickly I'd imagine. After all, nearly everyone is capable of catching up with new information and here it is.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Feb 02 2012 04:00 PM

More lovely quotes indicating the true agenda behind global warming. Don't look at the problem as the closer you do the less you actually see. Look at the attempted solutions. This is what is actually happening:


"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary." - Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

This created UN Agenda 21 and every single policy since has been part of this. Have you ever seen it in the papers? I doubt it, but it's an actual policy document in the public domain. Don't be fooled by the words, this is what it's really about.

Agenda 21 and history

Now if you understand these plans you'll understand why I often spend hours a day (as I have for most of this afternoon) researching and publicising what is the greatest scandal since Hitler's final solution. What do you think 'Mortality control' means? Genocide is the actual translation. Through causing poverty. Depopulation.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Feb 05 2012 04:25 PM

One good thing about physical graphs is however long it takes the details can be dug up, and when the thousands of individual measurements which went into one of the most important graphs ever used (the one which keeps the IPCC going) are gradually analysed, it is discovered they were selected from those which allowed the trend to increase and left out either huge areas which didn't, or just didn't have any at all.

This is the second of James Hansen's back engineered graphs, the last showed 75% of the coverage had been added manually as not covered by actual measurements, and instead of putting in a neutral figure put one in which made everything rise by far more than it should have.

I don't know how many times scientists will have to be caught doing this before we all realise that that is how they get their figures altogether- how could they need to alter and select specific figures if it was all warming as they claim? Hansen I must add has never once been taken to task or questioned on these graphs. He is the top dog who is basically Al Gore's sidekick and both protected and instructed by the IPCC to produce the goods every year. There simply isn't anyone higher to question it, we all know (at least those who have seen the links) yet besides realising it takes a huge amount of effort to keep these graphs showing what they need, the laws keep being passed to decarbonise the world at a cost greater than any bank crash or recession.

On the same day various scientists have also published graphs and articles explaining how and why temperatures have stabilised and are now falling. Believe it or not a statistician armed with the raw data can even show that from Hansen's diagrams. Why?

As there is only one set of temperature data.

Any other variations have been created by leaving out the cooler ones or simply altering the old data to fit. It isn't possible to defend this action as it is like having your fingerprints on the stolen goods, there's simply no way round it. Yet it goes on regardless and has no effect whenever exposed. That is the ultimate level of corruption as nearly every country of the world sponsors the IPCC directly and can challenge its findings. They all have access to far more data than I do and choose to look the other way.

The latest exposure of DIY temperature rises
Posted by: Tizzabelle

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Feb 08 2012 05:06 AM

Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt is a leading German socialist politician and environmentalist. He was reviewing some things the IPCC had to say (which were in his area of expertise) and was horrified to find many errors. This caused him to research more and find more mistakes all through the IPCC's methods and reports. He is now the co-author of a skeptical book. He's realised the giant scam AGW is. Germany newspaper "Bild" is running stories about the professor's epiphany. Perhaps this is the "tipping point" leading to more and more honesty in the science, the revelation of who the fraudsters have been, the flushing out of those who have deceived the public and political bodies to advance their aims. Oh joy! Maybe the world can soon turn away from the AGW mess (usually) well-meaning people have created and look at the real environmental issues out there. Billions if not trillions of dollars have been spent by governments trying to control something they had no hope in controlling as it never really existed.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/06/germany-in-skeptical-turmoil-on-both-climate-and-windfarms/
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Feb 08 2012 12:01 PM

Tizzabelle, could you expand your acronym AGW, please? I'm sure the GW stands for Global Warming, but the A eludes me.
Posted by: Tizzabelle

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Feb 08 2012 02:16 PM

Ooops.. it's Anthropogenic Global Warming i.e. man-made. smile
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Feb 08 2012 03:42 PM

TY
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Feb 08 2012 05:03 PM

Thanks Tizzabelle, I read the Bild article and seemed it was more a result of the current economic hardship than any actual questioning of the theory. It's costing every country billions and it's really kicking us all while we're down in Europe and they were the first to complain about it. If a genuine and official questioning of the theory follows it will indeed be a welcome release.

Today's news, after a decade or more of me (and millions of ordinary people) pointing out all current variations, even the ones that needed adjustments to do so, only demonstrate normal variations, has been published officially. The latest study simply says 'No, these current figures are perfectly normal and why the heck are you all making such a fuss.' The rise since 1800 or so (they don't specify any more exact period) has been the sharpest, but the point is not changed in that the range itself it has risen within is normal.

Peer reviewed- it's all normal

It's the CO2 which has confused people as they assume it must actually do something, so if you look for trouble you blame anything and everything on the imaginary demons, and end up ducking witches.

If only everyone was allowed to know all this through the media (the Daily Mail has published the IPCC graph which shows us now below the lowest estimate for 2010 so it's just begun over here at least) I can't imagine enough people to matter could still swallow the powerful diet of pure junk the media and politicians turn out all the time in their own personal interests and definitely not yours or mine. The truth has to catch up, and many times faster with the internet to allow it free.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Feb 17 2012 08:08 PM

Anyone with faith in scientists should use this example as the true nature of science, learning from new information and technology:

"The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."


Reality is gradually taking over from the models, and it's what those using common sense rather than computer programs had already worked out. Will the politicians catch up? Not while their power depends on it being otherwise. The red bit has been highlighted by me as it also demonstrates what the bible (I think) describes as 'feet of clay'.

Full article

Psychologically it's also interesting the way the author still tries to divert attention away from the self-evident headline and muddy the water away from the facts. That is such poor reporting it ought to be sued for bringing the profession into disrepute, if such a law existed.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Mar 02 2012 07:10 PM

I am not normally one to go off half-cocked, but this new development is almost as much about its potential as its result, so will go for it anyway.

A couple of weeks ago the Heartland Institute, a relatively small group dedicated to realism on global warming had its documents removed by someone pretending to be officially using them. They then added one which they hadn't obtained which was a forgery. This itself is pretty meaningless as dirty tricks are de rigeur around this field as anyone knows who has followed it, but the major news is this klutz is now being investigated by the FBI, and already found a connection (as I've always said they are working as a massive team) with the daddy of them all, James Hansen, possibly the creator of the story as gave a presentation to congress in 1988 which ended up creating world policy through the UN. Obama has actually put in $2.5 billion into climate change research, while being in the greatest debt the country has ever known.

I have also learnt that the only reason climategate1 did not attract criminal proceedings was an extremely unusual defence of limitation, as the Freedom of Information Act was written to only apply to breaches under 6 months old, and they waited till the limit was over to make sure nothing was done. In Britain no criminal law has a statute of limitations, and almost none have specific exceptions to that rule, this being one. The act was clearly made in breach of the act, possibly on multiple occasions (a similar case has just been lost in the USA, the only one of its kind) but the loophole worked.

But after two escapes using a number of ingenious methods (science is not my area of study despite a huge interest, but law is), maybe the third time they will not be so lucky. This is the first time any criminal authority has even looked at the climate organisation, and within days have already turned up the seeds of a conspiracy as the report is out. So although I'd normally wait till the verdict, this at least has taken the area into brand new territory and from my own investigations was only a matter of time.

Here's the story

The legal bit
Posted by: Ghosttowner

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Mar 03 2012 02:36 AM

Hi Satguru,

Been really following the Heartland issue. Personally, I feel it couldn't have happened to a better person than Gleick. Especially since he has been constantly whining about Heartland's spending on exposing alarmists. Funny considering that Heartland only raises a couple of million a year and his organization got tens of millions from energy organizations! I think with the exposure of Gleick for what he truly is provides more proof, along with all of the previous emails exposing the collusion with other scientists, that the whole scam is falling apart. The alarmists are in full panic mode and I am truly enjoying the squirming! Too bad that none of the truly scientific temperature measurements are helping them out since temperatures have been steady or dropping for the last ten years. Also, just saw an article by some AGW activists that used a graph showing that ocean levels have been dropping steadily (not rising) and said that the extensive ice melt at the poles was causing too much rain to fall in Australia, causing the water drop. What???? I thought we all were going to drown by 2015! Keep up providing your information. I might not always comment but I always read your updates.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Mar 03 2012 09:30 AM

Satguru, This will get into a parallel topic but one which I think the original world was sensitive to which allowed GW scamming to take hold: The desire to control our weather!
I'm down here in Florida below that braid of murderous supercells which are keeping the Tornado Alley moniker alive. I had a bit to do with the radar they use to detect cylonic rotations within those supercells. We are fairly certain the rotations are caused by the warm air to the south colliding with the cold air from the north. Warm air rises. Tries to go over the cold and forces the cold downward impelling a spin to the atmosphere.
I propose we use those same radars turned to directional beams and to a higher (max) power setting and point them at the north (cold) side of the supercells. This should have the effect of warmong at some small amount of the cold air. That in turn would slow down the impelled twisting of the warmer air trying to get over it. We might not be able to kill a supercell but we might lower the speeds of the cyclone funnels which descend to Earth and cause the death and damage. Another point would be to not look at the supercells with radar from transmitters on the south side of the clouds (that could actually be exacerbating the situation). The model seems to work on my scratch sheet. I'll now turn that idea over to those weather scientists who were hoping to get ahead via the GW issue and are now out of a job. Become Radar Techs manning the multitude of transmitters we will need to deflate the supercell phenomenon.
Global Warming: Not! Weather Control: Yeah!
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Mar 04 2012 07:22 PM

Thanks Ghosttowner, the funding is known enough for both sides to see one has tens of times more than the other. Also it's not a political issue, but as become one is now treated like it. The sea levels are now back to the 2005 level and would struggle to break the 20th century increase at current rates (8 inches, totally unremarkable). The Antarctic contains 90% of the world's ice (easier to measure and reflects temperature fairly faithfully) and has risen 1% a decade for some time much to the frustration of those who want to show it should be shrinking.

The data comes from a variety of sources, and are of different levels of reliability. I prefer coastguards followed by long-standing universities who have been sharing it for long before this became fashionable. I only remembered the other day that the IPCC altered one of their own documents from 1995 showing the medieval warm period after accepting the hockey stick diagram which had removed it. Now if you have an established historic record accepted throughout a profession since it was originally established, and a new graph has simply altered the slope to iron it out you can't use them both as one is clearly wrong.

But which one?

Mehaul, I'd say if radar would work at least it's harmless so go ahead. We already have a sky full of it with apparently no consequences, while metal sulphides and other strange chemicals at amounts possible to saturate the atmosphere would be akin to destroying it for generations ahead of us, and Bill Gates and Richard Branson are now paying for it. Have they forgotten their families will also be breathing this muck in, or are they planning to take Branson's rocket to another planet ready and waiting for them, as otherwise they will also need gasmasks for the rest of their lives just like their potential victims.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Mar 10 2012 07:23 PM

Genius is a rare and recognisable quality in the world, and Christopher Monckton is a clear example of it. I've had a little of the usual stick daring to question my betters, and was tempted to just copy the complete summary of the recent lecture here and be done with it, but would be taking advantage of the site and will just add the link.

The summary is that he has the figures at hand, probably all of them. He is prepared, and in true genius style understands how every part fits into and affects the whole. He addressed a room of science students and professors, and barely a one understood the material whatsoever. This should be a humbling experience for anyone honest enough to admit good people can sometimes be wrong.

Monckton lecture
Posted by: george48

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Mar 10 2012 10:00 PM

I read this straight through,brlliant.
Shocked them silent.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Mar 15 2012 05:59 PM

Thanks George, Monckton has the time and resources to make this a full time job, and the brains to sweep his opponents away with no effort. None of his data is in question, the majority of data we use is from the IPCC itself or universities and coastguards. No one else is qualified to collect it and there's nothing the slightest bit odd on the data until someone comes along and alters it and puts it in their own reports. Normally this would be called false accounting and totally illegal, but when it comes to climate figures it seems anything goes.

Someone asked a few days ago for evidence James Hansen claimed temperatures would rise 5 degrees or so by this decade (he'd been doing it for 30 years, so demonstrated the typical thoroughness of such activists who simply listen to politicians and don't learn the data), and I can't remember which of the many blogs I read it on so can't go back now (he really didn't need me as it can be searched in minutes), but someone has gone to the trouble now to collate all Hansen's claims since 1986, and were it not for the fact he is being used by the world's government to make policies it would almost be amusing. The frightening thing is not being flooded (it's impossible, it would take many thousands of years at the current rates of change) but that the governments allow him to be quoted and then follow him to the letter. The IPCC do not approve of the claims in general as their guidelines do not encourage either certainty or claims outside their own parameters, yet all our governments (except the Czech Republic, possible Poland and now Canada) are acting on every one of them as if genuine.

As his first claim was 1986 and clearly nonsense, as have been all the others, then the fact he has been kept in office and treated like an emperor or even a demi-god says far more about the state of the world than the rantings of one extremist who ought to have been quietly retired once it was clear he had no grasp of reality.

Hansen's complete predictions
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Mar 20 2012 05:11 PM

I've just compiled all the times reported here (and a few more) when scientists were caught getting it wrong. The worst to me being the glaciers as they had all claimed they were losing a very specific 50 billion tons of water a year, till actual measurements found they had lost none for a decade. A few raised eyebrows but no apologies.

Now to those who have accused me of being anti-science, I would first say it is because I support science entirely I see these massive errors as being anti-science, and my exposure of them does not make me an activist or troublemaker but a reporter. The media rarely report these, especially beyond the original one, so it means others like me have to and then take the pointless personal insults simply for showing up well qualified and informed professionals who ought to know better.

My question is, how many of these errors need to arise before even the most dedicated supporters of climate science realise this is not how science should be carried out, and had any other professional or more so business person done the same thing they would have lost their job, and possibly prosecuted as well? Think about it, if a doctor made similar errors people could die. That's not a joke.

Here's a recap.
------------------------------------

Known errors committed by climate scientists:

James Hansen predicted temperature and sea level rises of a few degrees and feet by 2020 at the latest in the 80s. In 2012 the temperature rose less than half a degree and the sea by a couple of inches. He continues to make similar predictions to this day although clearly nowhere close to reality from the beginning.
------------------------
After claiming (unanimously) the largest chain of glaciers on earth was melting at a very specific 50 billion tons of water a year, a study in 2012 actually measuring it directly found it had not changed at all in a decade. Some scientists expressed surprise but no apologies were forthcoming.
"The world's greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall."
-------------------------

Until 1995 the warmer than present medieval warm period was part of the official UN data, one day it vanished from their records, replaced with the hockey stick, which could not function with a higher period previously. It remains in all textbooks and studies from the period and earlier but no longer acknowledged by the converts to the hockey stick. But in order to accept the hockey stick it was necessary to rewrite the past.
-------------------------
In March 2012 a report came out predicting massive sea level rises as usual, but quoted the current sea levels as being “ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (CBS) — A new report shows sea levels are rapidly rising and the study predicts the Jersey Shore could be underwater in a matter of decades.”

Except the rapidly rising sea levels they quote have fallen in the last couple of years than they had risen in the previous three, bringing them back to 2005 levels. In fact the sea level has been rising at around 8 inches a century and currently could barely reach that at the current rate, and the stalled temperature and world ice levels all correspond with each other as stable within normal variations.
-------------------
The IPCC created a graph predicting temperatures under varying levels of CO2, and come 2012 the actual temperature was below that of the stable level with none added, despite the actual CO2 rising steadily for decades.

Most links are above and can provide for all others.
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Mar 22 2012 01:54 AM

I went to the site Monckton recommended, and found just the opposite of what he said would be found.

The University of Illinois shows increasing global temperatures and CO2 levels.

The Crysphere Today shows huge polar ice loss since 1980.

Also here, Recent observed surface air temperature changes over the Arctic region are the largest in the world. Winter (DJF) rates of warming exceed 4 degrees C. over portions of the Arctic land areas. . . Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years. . . The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%.

Of course Monckton didn't say we aren't losing arctic sea ice; he said there isn't a net polar loss combining arctic and antarctic ice, and he's technically correct on that for the present. However, West Antarctica is losing ice and is expected to lose more; it's just lagging behind arctic ice. That's according to New Scientist. See also Scientific American. (This is not the Daily Mail!)

Here's a panorama of the whole picture from NASA.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Mar 22 2012 10:02 AM

I know the figures on both sides. In law (and officially in science) guilt/a theory has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. All these variations, both in interpretation and the readings themselves if nothing else simply raise doubts. Time raises doubts, as new data keeps contradicting old guesses. Taking it back to global warming
(remember that, the cause of climate change?), going back to basics without the warming just why would anyone look for its results? The official rise is 0.8C, only half that from CO2. That doubling experiment is half run. Scientists do not know why the Antarctic (90% of all ice) is growing at 1% a decade, and fully admitted they can't predict when the CO2 spectrum will be saturated and no longer absorb any more heat. The current temperature changes would not have been noticed oustside the CO2 rise as we are always coming out of an ice age or going into one due to the precession of the orbit and variations in the sun's output. I found this week we've only had polar ice at all a third of the last 100 million years, it is not the norm and the earth survives either way quite happily. The Florida Keys are barely above sea level and all the jettys and shorelines have not changed in living memory.

All these studies break the first rule of science, never go from the particular to the general. And secondly when things change you must keep up with them. The IPCC have a list of caveats including 'It is not yet possible to assign any single event to man made warming'. The media, politicians and most of all scientists must follow these rules as they are currently acting as if driven by religious faith, and dismissing every single claim they may have got it wrong. I've checked their figures over and over again for years and they just don't add up. Worse still not one politician or professor has come out and said so while around the world millions of ordinary people can see it clearly. I'll repeat my rule again, scientists are qualified to originate the material, and if it's not totally obscure then everyone is qualified to judge it using only logic.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Mar 22 2012 10:24 AM

There's a part of the atmosphere's health that the scientists did get right. That was the Ozone hole being contributed to by Chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere, contributing, if not outright causing, the new or enlarged hole. Stopping the release of those chemicals into the mix was a good thing backed by scientific method. Perhaps other scientists tried to stretch the problem to other causes and the whole thing just snowballed when business saw the impact it could have with nations coming up with funding and made research a business unto itself (sorry about the run-on sentences but it is a runon topic).
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Mar 22 2012 05:08 PM

Unfortunately a tree and fruit it bears is only as healthy as its roots. How many people genuinely have the ability to personally test these figures and theories and have to go on trust? That trust can easily be exploited (it is after all human nature, even if few succumb), bearing in mind before the internet it would have been nigh on impossible to check. But the figures and most studies are now freely published, and with the time and corresponding patience anyone can collect this data and draw their own conclusions. Scientific data must be open to public scrutiny, especially when solely used to create public policy. Many newly elected politicians enter with high ideals, and then told on day one by the whips if they remain independent they'll never advance beyond a back bencher. Many report following retirement this has caused a decline in nearly every one, and worse still as a result raises a major public suspicion in the rare politician like Ron Paul who clearly does not bow to party pressure as it is so unusual to break the common norms.
Posted by: bloomsby

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Mar 22 2012 07:34 PM

Quote:
How many people genuinely have the ability to personally test these figures and theories and have to go on trust?


That applies to all specialized areas of knowledge, whether we like it or not.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Mar 22 2012 09:51 PM

I think given the time and facilities I'd say you could put them on a sliding scale to fairly easy to see to almost impossible. A typical example would be the related polar bear population. Although hard to count from inaccessibility, they have ways of extrapolating which can provide at least comparitive accuracy and a good estimate of the total. The more discrete or direct a figure is the easier it is for the general public to at least get clear indications and clues directly from.

Within climate we have the top level order, the visuals. All satellite views are online, so the comparitive polar regions show the ice changing over a chosen period and then can superimpose the two over each other to see the changes directly. So there are smaller elements we can all see, and when they say the Antarctic ice is growing we can test it directly and it is.

Temperature measurements are at the bottom end, as without your own satellite array you can't have a clue for anywhere outside your garden. But Nils-Axel Morner, an oceanographer, hires satellite time every week personally so he can keep his own records without a human filter being involved, outside his work duties. If a local group was interested they could band together and do the same given the available funds.

Medical claims are also directly testable. If you find in 2010 no one you know has ever had diphtheria you can fairly well assume it is not present in the UK and whatever the studies said you would have a benchmark albeit anecdotal. But measles is something we nearly all had in the 60s but with vaccination most parents now will report a far lower incidence with many children probably never having it. I can keep working through all the sciences in order to give examples at each end of the spectrum but sure everyone's got the gist now. World climate figures are actually so complex it's technically impossible to measure any for a whole year accurately, there are error margins but we are not party to most of them. But for example the temperature measurements on land are under 25% real while the rest, like a gas bill, are estimated. Sea level varies from inch to inch and moment to moment, and while local tide gauges are almost infallible (the only variable being the land rising and sinking, which can be measured very well) when you add the land based ones and all the sea bobs and satellite measurements you will see a random selection of slopes per spot per day/week/month/year. Say five spots are taken per 1000 miles (as a site has done) no trend at all can be seen. Take sets from maybe 100 countries and a gradual pattern may form, but the sample set is so small you can imagine how many points you would need to get the genuine picture. The same goes for temperature but many times more, as it not only varies per point on the surface but at each level in the air. And below the surface of the sea. The warm/cool currents are so complex that if you just drop down a few yards the temperature of the sea changes many times, and also increases with depth which I only recently discovered.

As the climate brought the term 'chaos theory' as it was so complex trying to follow a small change to its conclusions was never the same twice so virtually beyond any ability to measure in the future, and nearly as hard in the present. Until man made warming was an issue there was little need for long term or worldwide measurements. Satellites didn't exist to do it till 1979, everything before then has been from basic land, air and sea thermometers and as said only cover a quarter of the planet with huge areas almost absent as so inaccessible. Most are in urban areas where they are concentrated together and then places like Siberia and the rain forests are filled in using who knows what algorithms. Therefore I believe the climate is indeed the most arcane area of all natural sciences, and as such the ideal ground for the opportunity to slip through information not quite right, much as structured financial instruments which even the sellers did not understand in some cases. In something like astronomy or medicine there is simply not the opportunity to do so, as amateurs can use telescopes and everyone who visits a doctor knows what they can and can't do. But no one without a satellite and super computer, plus a PhD to interpret the figures can have more than a faint hint of the world climate beyond looking at the ice caps. That puts the climate in a very different category to me.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Mar 25 2012 11:05 AM

Someone's just put together two of three diagrams re CO2 (commonly accepted across the board) and while again not talking Daily Mail the temperature diagram was the IPCC's own, suddenly discarded in 1995 for the hockey stick.

CO2 vs temperature

Anyone familiar with the temperature records would say 'How can these be so different to the set we now use?' and I would ask exactly the same question. This is not a switch of temperature records by a dodgy paper or think tank, it's the UN. Although they appear not to have been caught till now, they simply took what had been the official world temperature records used for the whole 20th century beforehand and replaced them with a totally new set. At best this means they got it so wrong before they had to rewrite history, and if that was the case how much confidence does that give you in the discipline, where at the very least they have admitted they got it so totally wrong they had to replace long-standing data with absolutely new, and at the very worst they have just changed something which may well have been perfectly accurate with one that isn't.

Either way it doesn't give me confidence in the whole area, and am utterly flabbergasted it manages to be maintained in about 90% of the general public, even the handful who learn about this. At the very least this shows climate measurements to be in their very infancy, and I personally do not want infants running my world.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Apr 11 2012 07:38 PM

NASA, led by James Hansen, although officially a space exploration organisation, has led the world in global warming campaigning, and in an unprecedented move seven astronauts and a selection of other scientists numbering around fifty have just written to them asking them to stop peddling unproven material about global warming and get back to space.

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

The status of these individuals lends a huge blow to the claim the science is settled. There cannot be a consensus if more and more of them are coming out openly and disagreeing with it. I strongly suggest all the down the line believers look at these points very closely and think about why they would possibly want to do such a thing unless they genuinely thought the position was not a tenable one.

In their letter, the group said that thousands of years of data challenge modern-day claims that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate change. “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from (NASA’s) Goddard Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled,” they wrote.

NASA article
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Apr 13 2012 10:04 AM

Not in direct response to the challenge, this week NASA's latest research has now confirmed the changes in climate throughout history have been mainly driven by solar influences. As a result, how anyone can discount their effects since the industrial revolution, as if the added CO2 somehow makes the previous known driver of most changes insignificant I do not know. But from the side of logic if the sun did it before then it always has to. Unless they can prove an increase in about 0.03% of the official greenhouse gases (the rest are mainly water, about 97%) is actually able to have a stronger influence than the gradually becoming known solar influences they should not try and claim it can.

It's the sun, stupid.

...new study released from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland measuring the global temperature variance during the past 100 years has found the sun's heat and variable cycles have indeed made a significant, measurable impact and greatly influenced Earth's climate.

In fact, the influence extends as far back as the Industrial Revolution.Goddard's research shows that the solar cycle's ups and downs directly affect the temperatures and long term climate. During solar minimum they discovered about 1.36 watts per square meter of solar energy hits Earth's mesosphere; solar maximum escalates to 1.40 watts per square meter.


This is not from a blogger, think tank or oil company. NASA's GISS and the CRU at East Anglia are the two main sources of climate data for the IPCC. I'd say once either of them start changing their tune those below ought to take note.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Apr 16 2012 04:28 PM

Keeping up, those naughty Himalayan glaciers are not only not shrinking but now the Karakorum range is growing. The models didn't expect that either but then again who can predict the future as a person, let alone a computer?

Report here

I really wonder what the 'tipping point' (to borrow a phrase) of these events is before the paradigm shifts? How much strain can the theory take before it at least bends?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Apr 16 2012 07:27 PM

Oh wow, two in a day! It's like a domino effect already!
--------------------------------



Emperor penguins, whose long treks across Antarctic ice to mate have been immortalised by Hollywood, are heading towards extinction, scientists say. Based on predictions of sea ice extent from climate change models, the penguins are likely to see their numbers plummet by 95% by 2100. That level of decline could wreak havoc on the delicate Antarctic food chain. The research is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. --BBC News, 26 January 2009


Nearly twice as many emperor penguins inhabit Antarctica as was thought. UK, US and Australian scientists used satellite technology to trace and count the iconic birds, finding them to number almost 600,000. The extent of sea ice in the Antarctic has been relatively stable in recent years (unlike in the Arctic), although this picture hides some fairly large regional variations. --Jonathan Amos, BBC News, 13 April 2012
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Apr 27 2012 07:53 PM

Wow, some years after the NOAA website had been showing a sea level rise of the low millimetres a year, until it started falling a couple of years ago, someone's finally picked it up in the research field.

"A paper published today in Climate of the Past finds that sea level changes in the tropical Pacific during the period 1950-2009 are explained due to natural changes in the cycle of El Ninos and La Ninas [called "internal variability"]. The authors state, "While our analysis cannot rule out any influence of anthropogenic forcing [man-made 'greenhouse' gases], it concludes that the latter effect in that particular region is still hardly detectable." The paper finds no evidence of accelerating sea level rise and instead shows the running 17 year average rise has decelerated over the past 59 years."


Details here

This follows the previous study, taking five years and £3 million which found rich people had more money than poor people. I so wish I'd got a PhD now.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun May 27 2012 07:22 AM

Dear oh dear oh dear. Like a student who only answers half a question, the IPCC and all the scientists working under them have kept us in the dark. Unless the writer is deluded (I have checked as much as I can and it appears the CO2 figures are fairly well known generally so unlikely) the greenhouse effect has been exagerrated almost infinitely as CO2 halves in power as it doubles, so it adds 1C at 260ppm, 1.5C at 520 (absolutely accurate as it is consistent with current measurements at 390ppm which only attributes about 0.4C, which is then only an estimate), and 1.75C at 1040 etc. This means it won't even reach the IPCC turning point of 2C which they consider a safe increase. Unfortunately unless the media get hold of such technical information and share it people simply wouldn't know- I only just found it last week and follow everything actively online.

Unlike mass measurements of climate this is a discrete physical property anyone with a physics or chemistry degree (that counts me out so must hand it over to one of our scientists here as well as many others I know on Facebook) can confirm or deny. If true the IPCC have been lying to us all so brazenly since the start the UN could be up for treason if exposed. Like I'm doing here basically.

CO2 diagrams

I am not exaggerating. The cost of their story has diverted aid from the third world for clean water, cataract operations, draining swamps for malaria, as well as doubling or tripling western energy prices so 3000 people in Britain have died of hypothermia every year since they went up. All these deaths and those caused by making people use their food crops for biofuel which has caused many more deaths in the third world from starvation we see another holocaust in the making nobody even realises is happening, much like the last one.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jun 03 2012 03:59 PM

I don't know how or why this happens, but after 12 years of being well covered up, this paper has now surfaced, from James Hansen who always says exactly the opposite (he could be described as the father of man made warming theory) this now comes up:

..we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols..


Scientific papers, especially those used to make laws, are supposed to be kept for the public to access, yet this has been hidden since publication in 2000. Hansen also said before then the safe amount for CO2 was 350ppm. The fact it's now over 390 and without the media telling you things are changing you and I really couldn't tell, and the temperature can't either.

More surprises
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jun 11 2012 08:32 PM

Yes, I admit in advance I've been cherry picking again, but in my defence if you add a cherry to the previous cherry and then the previous three pages that's enough for a pie and a few pots of jam into the deal.

I have just been reading a serious official guide to global warming to improve my scientific awareness around it, and was almost dropping off until this jumped out at me:

"To summarize, Hanson et al. believe that it is quite possible Earth could end up ice free with CO2 levels of 350 ppm which is well below where we currently are. Because the melting of Antarctic ice takes centuries there is time to lower the "tipping point" level of CO2 before it is too late. When Antarctica was last ice-free, sea levels were 70m (~230 feet) higher than today."

To make such claims in advance, it means sooner or later, and with CO2 rising 2ppm a year this would have meant over 20 years ago, reality will either confirm or refute your predictions. Reality says the Arctic (10% of land ice) has shrunk maybe 1% while the Antarctic has grown a little. Basically little significant can be measured anyhow.

Now besides being kind enough to leave this gem in despite updating the site at least monthly with the latest figures, this is one huge example (among many others I've mentioned already) of discredited guesses. Possibly the worst so far although I have a growing list, this may be the ultimate before the next one happens. One cherry may indeed provide so little nutrition it is barely worth the trouble, but when you get a whole bowl then it's enough to keep you going till dinnertime. And I'd say this is more like a melon really. Add up the fruit salad so far and the confidence in all these wonderful graphs where 90% of them haven't happened yet ought to drop to the same level as the ice was expected to. I will concede strictly speaking Hansen (that's how you ought to spell it) was implying it would lead to the melt happening in centuries, but that's the same as saying if you die before me I'll leave everything in my will to your family. It may happen, but you'll never know about it and shouldn't rely on an impossible claim anyway. Making impossible claims is not scientific, and while the sun has a fixed amount of fuel to predict (ie on a linear scale) when it will run out, so can predict an indefinite period ahead as we can work it out, you cannot use such methods in an open system as they are chaotic, just look at the differences from the other predictions made in the 1990s I already referred to, this one is so against logic let alone anything else I'm amazed the peer review system, designed to weed out anything dodgy (so I'm told) didn't catch this one as even if it was correct how would we ever know?

Basically it's the same as using out of body projection to see what happens after you die, and then publishing a peer reviewed paper. It may actually be right, but none of us will ever know. That's called cheating in any other field.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jun 16 2012 05:31 PM

An Enron executive spills the beans. Global warming was an excuse to receive massive subsidies and increase the value of their gas reserves. Once the roots are rotten how can you accept the tree and all the fruit? The tracks are clear, Enron, GE wind and BP solar banded together to outlaw coal and attract huge payments from taxes for their existing businesses. Besides the scientists themselves industry has easily made the most money out of these schemes, so of course makes perfect sense they are behind them.

The usual suspects

None of this is either a secret or a surprise, or ought to be if you are still not surprised by such disgusting fraud on a scale the mafia would sell their souls for.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jun 18 2012 02:17 PM

This is interesting. Not being qualified in science but law this request is pretty much what you'd expect from a mafia informant. You don't ask for criminal immunity unless, well, you are worthy of it. This is virtually a public and totally unexpected admission of guilt, meaning they have realised it must be preferable to admit something now than try and cover it up and risk long prison terms and criminal records. Basically you don't ask for something if you don't need it.

Here it is

Climate researchers working for the United Nations have issued an astonishing plea for immunity from prosecution. Government-funded personnel sought the ruling on the eve of the latest round of international climate talks scheduled for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (June 20, 2012).

Can you think of any other scenario where this would have been done besides the bloomin' obvious one? I can't, this is normally the last shot of a desperate man during a police investigation. I'm sure the other lawyers around will support me on that, especially those with a criminal practice while I am only a teacher.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jun 24 2012 09:05 AM

For those accusing me of being anti science here, I would point them to this study just released by the US National Academy of Science. Following the IPCCs similar predictions for temperature in the 90s which have now been shown to be totally bogus, as the actual temperature wasn't even on the diagram, they have one now for sea level, a foot in 20 years now predicted despite a steady rise of 8 inches a century for the last two. This is both impossible to propose, as the climate is an open system and simply can't make predictions about more than a few months at best, and secondly the science itself (which I have had to check to learn this) makes such a rise impossible as it requires a temperature rise of a few degrees C at least, and then a rapid melting of a huge portion of land ice, which takes too long to be seen due to latent heat making a temperature a few degrees above zero before it melts, so adding a couple more C to even allow the ice to melt after it's gone up already.

Now basically people's memories aren't that long. In 20 years no one will even remember global warming, let alone the ridiculous guesses these professional people have churned out knowing full well only the present will take them seriously while the future when they don't happen will see many new events overtake anything they've pretended to forsee. No, this is not science, it is a crime. If they were just saying it for attention I'd say they were simply making themselves look stupid, but these reports are used by governments to raise taxes. That, to me, is treason. I am not anti science, it's because of that I must do my best to expose those who are.

Lies, lies and more utter rubbish

I've seen some pretty rough stuff over the last 30 years, best of all James Hansen's a few feet of sea level rise, but that was one man without a shred of evidence (he still stands by it apparently 20 years later despite the actual levels doing nothing) whereas this is one of the top groups in the world, presumably on a par with the equally deluded Royal Society over here. But such nonsense has now destroyed their credibility as what they have claimed cannot even happen. It's not a 'long shot' or exaggeration, it is physically not possible to melt that much ice within such a short time while there is no known potential cause. The CO2 rise has already proved beyond doubt it cannot cause positive feedback, so there simply isn't a mechanism to cause a rise by any other means. This equation is watertight. Nothing known can make it happen, and if they believe it then they should be retired, and if they don't they should be jailed.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jun 24 2012 12:13 PM

Take their breeding licenses away! Refuse to issue marriage licenses to them. Perform a Lysistrata on them!

This month's 'Scientific American' says the Antarctic Ice Cap is now disappearing at an alarming rate. They say the glaciers there are growing into the sea (so how's that prove loss? It proves glacier growth fer cripes sake!) and calving at an alarming rate. So, this has never happened before?
(Note: many detractors of that otherwise fine magazine claim that the oil/energy consortium directs its editorial board. They do buy a lot of ad space.)
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jun 25 2012 08:48 AM

I checked the Antarctic figures and didn't find anything conclusive till just now, it seems previous estimates were actually based more on models than actual measurements, meanwhile after two year's worth of measurements they are indeed stable after all. I doubt any of the warming lot will take any notice though, it would ruin their whole game.

Antarctic is not actually melting


"It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.

The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ..."


Well fancy that. Now what was I saying about scientists before?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jul 01 2012 06:55 PM

It's been a quiet day, and often means I do my research to see whatever turns up. Considering this utter bombshell is almost two years old and I only just found it, despite having tens of newsfeeds during my waking hours, shows what a great job the media and lobbyists did covering it up, till now.

Previously unknown to me interested parties have indeed taken a government temperature record to court as (like all the ones posted here and many more) it varied from the original, with all having the same 30' or so tilt to make the right side higher than the left.

This went to trial in 2010 and the judge forced the government to abandon the new graph and replace it with what was clearly the genuine data (bear in mind unlike government policy courts are legally bound to have experts on both sides) which showed absolutely no warming whatsoever from start to finish.

Hitherto unknown court case

Now if they can do it in New Zealand, they can do it in America, as they've done exactly the same thing. After an NOAA report in the late 80s saying the US had broken the world trend as showed no warming at all, and it meant nothing as it only comprised 1.5% of the planet anyhow, in 2000 it joined the rest with the upslope. Until Steven Goddard got hold of the actual graph before it sloped. It followed the utterly featureless trend of the previous one up to the present once the picture had been straightened from the angle they added. I don't think those capable (if I knew who they were I'd let them know) of bringing a case there (anyone help me here?) are aware this is possible and has been already successful, as legal precedent tends to be the same in all similar systems both simple error posing as reality and most importantly the legal authority to try and then reverse the action are both present. They just need the right people to bring a case and if a similar precedent exists only in another country using their system it is admissible as a guide. That was why the Privy Council heard final appeals for the whole Commonwealth and the principle has applied across British law in both directions where no home precedent exists.

Same scenario, different location

These are not two isolated cases either, just the best documented. If you check for yourselves you will see it is actually standard practice, therefore as world temperature is created by adding the countries together, and NZ and now US have been found to be false, what does that do to the total they make up (rhetorical question)?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jul 09 2012 02:26 PM

These pesky scientists just can't agree when it comes to climate:

Temperature rise analysis

In contrast to Crutzen and Molina, Giaever found the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case:

“What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”

He disagreed that carbon dioxide was involved and showed several charts that asserted, among other things, that climate had even cooled.


The way temperatures are measured, once known, are basically filling in the spaces and comparing apples with oranges before finally calculating three different figures: Raw data, adjusted data and anomalies. No set is more or less accurate than the others, while the adjustments are supposed to weed poor measurements and urban heat islands out they tend to increase temperatures rather than the expected reduction consistently.

The whole climate issue can only be one of perception. No one has even a fraction of the whole picture- it was only this year before the Himalayan glacier range and sub-Antarctic sea could be measured directly, and both proved the guesses totally wrong. Temperature diagrams vary between studies and mix proxy, land and satellite temperatures as if identical before reaching the final figures. But the bottom line is what Gevaier says, how can a figure within the error margin be significant whether accurate or not? And if it is accurate why is it related to CO2 when the sort of variation which would never once have been focused on it without a rise of CO2.

If the input is small then the output can never be any larger. Just imagine a 1C variation above what you had today or yesterday, what difference do you think that would make? That is all they mean, everyone's overall temperature is 0.8C higher than it was 160 years ago, if they have even managed to measure it properly. And for that governments are winding us back to the dark ages?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Jul 10 2012 09:27 PM

I'm guessing this one's peer reviewed so take any objections up directly and not with me. More evidence existing temperature records are wrong,

A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back then.

"We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Professor-Doktor Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, one of the scientists leading the study. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy."


If nothing else, those who return time and again accusing me of being anti science must be reminded: This IS science.

Roman and medieval warm periods
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jul 11 2012 08:06 AM

The Weather Channel: Sound bit: "Global Warming", proof: Glacier and Ice Cap exhibited glacier calving and shrinking iceburgs.

Speaking to the contrary:
1) Glaciers 'calve' because they are growing; and,
2) Iceburgs (fresh H2O) melt in salt water because salt water has a lower freezing temp, meaning 30^oF sea water will melt an iceburg.

They also said Antarctica set a record for highest temp ever recorded of 9^o! Wow. all twenty years of extensively covered geophysically measured temps (meaning they are only now measuring the entire continent) produced a high side result. Though they say that was the high, it was actually an average reading of many measurements and not a single one. Some places may have seen 10^o!. In a population of twenty average high temps a new bell curve tail end was set! Statisticians love that, NOT. It's insignificant statistically. What place on Earth might you say would be removed from man's influence and tell us the story of what is going on naturally climate-wise? Why, the Antarctic of course!

Let's look at this calving thing. As glaciers grow, usually down a valley they have carved, they stay together because the ice, though brittle, is supported underneath by solid land. When they grow out over a place where the land drops away or a shore line sinks the sea floor from under them, the physical pull of gravity is enough to fracture off the unsupported sections (a sort of example of why cantilevers work, but in this case, it's how lacking a cantilever causes failure). Another way they calve is that glaciers are strong in a straight direction, slightly downward in the heading of their growth. Once they reach open water, there is Archimede's Principle brought into play. A buoyant force upward is exerted on them by the surrounding water. Being brittle, the ice fractures and chunks fall away. How do these things move toward the water? They are pushed from behind by new glacial material. Ice is considered a solid form of water. But it is NOT a solid! it is a flowable material like glass. The flow rate is extremely slow so it seems not to be occurring but it is. If you don't push it, it stops flowing (or flows at an even slower rate). So, if there was melting and no new growth going on, there would be no physical force to be pushing the mass to it's calving points.

Looking at this the other way, what would you expect to see if the glaciers were melting away? The depth on average would be lower (they disappear from top down not front to back) and the flow of melted water underneath the ice (run-off) would be increased. They would appear to shrink away from the points where they traditionally did calving. Calving would cease to occur. I see no depth numbers and no run-off numbers being reported as having decreased and increased respectively.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jul 15 2012 02:40 PM

An Aesop's fable here.

Observation of primary data makes all secondary data dependent on it, where the media and politicians treat it all as equal, so for instance are happy to report hot weather when it's getting colder overall. But the single primary figure which became clear some time ago is the official temperature rise relative to CO2.

CO2 rise: 50%
Temperature rise o.8C (half attributed to CO2).

Expected bare rise with no feedback 0.5C

Therefore with a 50% rise in CO2 temperatures have risen no more than 0.8C, implying a slight negative feedback.

NASA have just caught up.

NASA reduce doubling of CO2 to 1.64C rise

It took them a few years but they have finally agreed that is pretty well the sole possible conclusion. They are second in command to the IPCC so still uncertain whether this will be taken up by the masters.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Jul 17 2012 11:52 AM

Finally what I noticed years ago has been proved in a paper. The adjustments systematically made to data are literally warmed up. It's the same as banks, when they make genuine mistakes they even out to near zero (or 50% between positive and negative) and these were meant to as do all honest errors. These were found to be positive in 67% of all data.

“increased positive trends, decreased negative trends, or changed negative trends to positive,” whereas “the expected proportions would be 1/2 (50%).”

The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.

---------------------

This means the biased data adjustments increased the probable actual temperatures by around 75%, meaning they were no higher than they were meant to be, so the 'unprecedented warming' claimed only possible to be from man made CO2 may not actually have ever existed.

Here it is

I'd say if nothing else don't those claiming I'm running a campaign against science accept this raises reasonable doubts?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Jul 17 2012 07:30 PM

This material is speeding up, but one topic per box.

IPCC mainly not peer reviewed and many political appointments

Following a long investigation by the IAC, an official independent body, the findings of the IPCC were:

"The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians."

They are actually following the recommendations and claim to have completed the process on June the 27th this year. I haven't seen any results yet, and certainly no reports elsewhere, but they have been pretty much busted officially.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jul 21 2012 05:30 PM

I may have posted part of this before but new people read every day and I've been reading more and can now include the quote in its context. I also read some older material from the 20s and 30s and very little had been altered besides the names and places. Fascinating.

“It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum such as motivation seemed to have ceased to exist or have yet to be found. The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor…Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose…

Democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy [of the elites and their minions] then is humanity itself.”

- “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Jul 24 2012 08:35 PM

In order to understand science you really need to know politics, economics and history. In science a pattern has regularly formed where an individual or small group come up with a totally opposite view to the 'consensus', like the earth revolving round the sun or stomach ulcers being caused by a bacteria, and then after decades of ridicule or more someone equipped to do so suddenly finds they were right all along.

Like this time:

CO2 is a result of warming

Apparently some years after first discovered by a handful of independent experts working alone Copenhagen University have now discovered the CO2 in a warm phase is released hundreds of years ahead of the warming. Just as the others said already, why didn't anyone listen to them before?

Of course if this goes viral and people discover CO2 is rising from events hundreds of years ago the whole mechanism to prevent it being released now would become redundant. And when it doesn't why not?
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jul 25 2012 11:22 AM

You gotta love Stephen Colbert and his "Colbert Report" on Comedy Central. Last night he cited a report by scientists that claimed watching late night talk shows (which his show is) causes people to become despondent. So he checked the science of the claim! Turns out the scientists dimmed the ambient lighting for an hour before completely turning out the lights on ... get this ... hamsters! The lab people had measured changed brainwave activity in the animals after the exposure to that regimen. That's fine but the scientists made the leap on their own, without previous proof, that the symptoms they saw in the hamsters equated to despondancy in humans. They leapt from dimming the lights on rodents to despondent humans in one jump.
I say they failed to control the stimulation some light dimming can cause in humans who watch late night talk shows and are intrigued by what they see. All the hamsters got was dim lights. Wouldn't that depress you too? If the lab people had released different types of pheremones during the lighting changes, then just maybe and only maybe, there might have been a connection to be made. (I wonder how the scientists, I hate to call them that, introduced the commercial advertisement aspect to a dimmed light?)
Posted by: Jakeroo

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jul 25 2012 07:06 PM

I'm a skeptic about most things that "make the news", particularly when politicians get involved in areas they really know NOTHING about. And, it would seem, try to bully scientists to provide data that suits their agenda (which seems to be making money while they can). I don't argue with the data ITSELF (glacial melting etc are very REAL events), but rather HOW that data is applied. All "stats" students know that any numbers can be "manipulated". In business, it's called "creative accounting" lol.

There is little doubt that previous politicians who owned xbazillions of shares in the oil industry sought to protect that vested interest by kyboshing (by LAW, in many cases around the world) numerous patents/practical usage for alternate energy sources. I see the global warming "issue" in a similar way. Scare tactics followed by people who are rich enough to buy out all the patents that were previously squashed (thereby assuring them and their heirs additional multimillions if/when the oil craze falls through). I would LIKE to think the general populace wouldn't fall for 75% of the hype, but I've been wrong before lol.

There is NO denying that the planet is in a warming phase currently. Whether that is solely caused by humans is an ENTIRELY different matter. A polar shift could result in the same thing (and the Earth is moving towards one either this year or in the next few).

There is NO denying that humans ARE destroying the planet's resources and wildlife in hundreds of ways. These selfish actions could well bring an end to life (as humans know it currently), but whether those actions will bring an end to the planet itself is QUITE doubtful.

NASA itself, has reported that ALL of the planets have been experiencing a warming trend over the last 20 years. Unless you can verify that there are greedy life-forms on planets other than ours, the most likely reason for this trend is increased solar activity (which "we", as "important" as we like to think we are in "the grand scheme of things" have absolutely no control over).
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jul 25 2012 08:23 PM

CNN picked up on the hamster study today and reported in more detail. It was a study done by the University of Ohio. The scientists actually went beyond the simple despondent reaction Colbert reported. The grant spenders actually used the term depression in their paper as the reaction of the hamsters. Since depression is a psychological term, seems they also jumped the shark going the other way and attributed human emotions to hamsters.

Jakerroo, our solar system is not a closed system. There could be extra-solar influences causing the general temperature of system objects to rise. We could be travelling through a galactic dust cloud (light fog) that is raising atmosphere temps by nano-collision, the increased solar output you cited or a combination of the two if the noted increases are real because there is the chance also that the measurements are wrong.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jul 25 2012 09:18 PM

A quick recap of climate controversy history. For years now isolated scientists have said three things (at least) which in total claimed the IPCC had got their models wrong. The climate was not very sensitive to CO2, CO2 rose gradually after the temperature had throughout history and the major cause of temperature changes are solar activity and the tilt of the earth and distance from the sun.

This month studies have come back showing the likely amount of rise from a doubling of CO2 would be 1.64C, CO2 has always risen after temperature at a standard rate of delay from millions of years of deep ice cores which preserved the atmosphere going back that far, and now the full set of three, the climate is far more sensitive to small changes in solar activity than they originally thought- the IPCC don't even factor it in to their own equations as they say it is infinitesimal.

Until today that is:

Here it is

"Paper finds climate is 'highly sensitive to extremely weak' changes in solar activity
A paper published in Science by the esteemed geologist Dr. Gerard Bond and colleagues finds that "Earth’s climate system is highly sensitive to extremely weak perturbations in the Sun’s energy output, not just on the decadal scales that have been investigated previously, but also on the centennial to millennial time scales."

-----------------------------

Now having been a lecturer in the past I am very happy to lecture, and for the last however many years when my claims here have been attacked time and time again, as if the IPCC say it then it has to be right, have gradually and patiently all been supported by the top sources, NASA, the Nils Bohr Institute and now a top geologist. Science does not decide, it evolves. If you simply make a decision that shuts the door to all new data, actually having the effect of rejecting any new material which can't be right as it contradicts the existing theory. Science till now had never done that besides isolated examples where personal interests were involved, or the mainstream simply couldn't believe the new findings were possible, as with quasi crystals, which won the finder a Nobel Prize for beating the system.

The vast majority of the reason the IPCC and related agencies got it all so wrong and others at the time called them on it was nearly all their material was not climate based at all, but based on computer simulations of injecting CO2 into the climate at various levels. Now a few experts such as Steve McIntyre ran these projections back before the present and found the simulations didn't get the past right, so were all impossible to rely on as they were incapable of fitting with known reality. One by one melting Himalayan glaciers (200 million tons of ice a year I think) were found to have lost none, and then claims turned down in unison are now becoming found to be real simply because someone has taken the time to check and find out.

Therefore when the money can be found to fund such studies in the field one by one with absolutely no prior expectations these genuine scientists are simply doing what they always have done, being asked a question and looking for the answer with the best existing equipment. So how many new studies discovering that CO2 is not actually capable of doing anything more than a slight increase within the normal range will it take combined before anyone starts to notice?
Posted by: Jakeroo

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jul 25 2012 09:30 PM

mehaul: I have no desire to debate the "nuances" of the universe as a whole. I simply don't know enough about it. And neither do most people. But I'm quite certain humans don't have any influence on it regardless of closed systems, dust clouds or any other intergalactic detritus that may or may not result in what we are experiencing at present. I believe that was the MAIN point I was trying to express LOL
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jul 25 2012 09:52 PM

So you don't believe in, or can I convince you of, the interstellar sub-atomic heat hamster theory of global warming? Would five bucks swing the deal?
Posted by: Jakeroo

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jul 25 2012 10:16 PM

Sorry, I can't be "bought". But I quite adore hamsters LOL!
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jul 26 2012 09:04 AM

Jakeroo, I have learnt a huge amount about logic and academic process on my decade plus long investigation into global warming. The simple conclusions are there is a level above science and every other academic field, simply called logic. That means everyone able to use it is capable of judging other fields given understandable data. Otherwise we wouldn't use juries trying cases in every other field but using expert witnesses, and even the lawyers wouldn't be able to present cases in specialised areas such as medical negligence and building regulations etc, but they do and always have.

The models I was shown online this week of a climate system were clearly beyond anyone outside the field to understand as the equivalent of looking at the code behind the forum here. Someone else read it and pulled out about five major errors, meaning the model had doubled some parameters and multiplied others into monsters from mice. The scientists here are able to look at a plan or model and see how it performs, as they were trained to do so. So if an engineer looks at an engine blueprint they can easily assess the performance and any errors in it, but anyone can use it and experience it directly. Therefore although the scientist is able to judge data at the level of creation, everyone else can at the level of production, and both will experience the same engine performance whether in their heads or in their cars.

Therefore with the climate we are not talking about anything beyond logic and involving complex maths. In fact in an interview once a climatologist said the same thing, stating that as CO2 had gone up so much and the temperature was going up as well everything else was irrelevant as the two facts alone were enough to prove the theory. Now two things applied there, firstly the absolutely correct statement that this can be simplified for all to understand, and secondly they didn't use logic as correlation alone is not causation and the actual figures he referred to were in their models as there simply hasn't been enough time to run the experiment in the real world. But he knew everyone could follow these areas, had he been accurate in his description of them.

That was a few years ago and the new data constantly arriving now has refined and twisted the scenario greatly- for a start the powers that be have now finally started talking about why the temperature hasn't risen for 15 years, after spending the last 5 or so denying they hadn't risen. The explanations are so varied it would take Inspector Morse a whole episode to work his way through them, and fail to address the single nub of the argument that man made global warming needs an unusually high rise in temperature to exist, which hasn't happened. The models had it even with no rise in CO2, and it didn't happen. So gradually logic is overriding the silly imaginary exercises in their hard drives, and my personal statement to climate modellers is can a computer model a human mind, and if not when will it be able to? Of course the unanimous consensus is no, and I reply then how is the world climate any less complex and able to model either? I haven't had an answer to that yet.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jul 30 2012 07:49 PM

The hockey stick diagram, at least the US figures, have now been proved mathematically (through discovering the original data and comparing it with what we were shown) to follow the adjustments for the exact period of the hockey stick part, take them away and the temperature has fallen in the same period. I don't know if either the press has picked this one up or anyone will be questioned over it (as if anyone would try), but the current estimate is that this most likely applies to the whole diagram, but the original figures are injuncted so currently impossible to prove. Secondly, how many other vital pieces of scientific data required for our own wellbeing have been legally made secret?

Moving diagram before and after

It also applies to Alice Springs and Reykjavik, so clearly not an 'isolated' incident, as far as a continent can be described as such.

I am wondering if and when someone's up for an interrogation over this- if any other authority (in this case a national organisation) was found to be doing anything like this then it would be immediately suspended pending a major enquiry, except in climate cases. Like the secret data, again that doesn't sound right.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Aug 06 2012 11:33 AM

I will hand this one over to the scientists, I am only reporting exactly what has been compiled as what appears to be a mathematical certainty. These are based on physical properties rather than climate models, and mean everything in the climate models is completely impossible.

CO2 cannot add warming when increased

I am quite open to analysis not being more than a messenger. How can the IPCC expect huge amounts of warming from two gases apparently incapable of trapping much more already? These are the reasons I post all this, none of our politicians mention it when making new laws raising energy prices to reduce the usage (it doesn't as people just spend less on other things they don't need). The war against CO2 must be phony if these figures are true, and they're not the first time I've seen them mentioned.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Aug 17 2012 08:43 PM

Here's some real old fashioned science. Simple observation and statistical analysis. The earth always wobbles on its axis, and as a result the ocean has a few different currents over the short and medium (60 years in this case) terms, which repeat reliably and have now been demonstrated to correlate at 85% whereas CO2 and temperatures over the same period work out at 44%. Without the need to go all complicated and bring in forcing, back radiation etc, you can clearly see just from the graphs and correlations that of the two, CO2 does not particularly match the temperature line where the oscillations follow it faithfully.

On a happier note anyone still concerned about global warming will also see the temperature has not risen for 15 years so far, and however long people need to infer a trend none of the models showed it slowing down at any point as it has. The CO2 does not slow down, it is rising steadily but now getting further and further from the temperature each year. There is absolutely no need to be a scientist to get this, it's no different from doing your accounts.

Temperature follows ocean current cycles

Anyone not financially involved with the climate industry ought to see this (as I do) as extremely good news as it implies if nothing else the variations in temperature are very unlikely to be CO2 related.

I've added in the latest graph from 1997-2012. You can clearly see it's almost flat, and take away the 1998 El Nino spike and the tiny slope would be gone.

1997-2012 world temperature variation

Here's the latest one in even more detail. It contains a complete hockey stick, but it's the adjustments. Take them away and it's all gone. I'd call that busted in any other context where the perpetrators don't make the rules and enforce them as well.

Dear oh dear oh dear, where's the hockey stick gone?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Aug 20 2012 04:38 PM

In an Oct. 12, 2009, email to Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, fellow warming alarmist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., asked, “Where the heck is global warming?”

"Then Trenberth dropped a bombshell: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

He ended by admitting the global warming “data are surely wrong.”

“Our observing system is inadequate,” he wrote."

"They blamed their miscalculation on sulfate emission trajectories and revised their forecast to show a cooling trend lasting until 2020." (the dog ate my homework, big book of excuses p 32)

If nothing else, no one can call me a denier now until at least 2020 so I can safely say, on the authority of the top man himself,

There is currently no global warming.

Here it is
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Aug 23 2012 06:23 PM

We were told the second set of climate emails was massive and would be released gradually. This is the next set released today. It seems many of the community are quite rattled about how hard they need to work both to keep the public onside and to make sure the wrong data doesn't get into the general media. I've never seen another scientist behave like this, and if you work your way through these properly anyone without shares in the industry will start to realise that's not how normal business is carried out. You simply don't need to make such efforts to get your message across if you're in science, that's reserved for politics and PR, and at its lowest gutter level at that. I must say after being fascinated by science all my life these guys have wrecked its credibility almost totally for me, as hardly any of their non-climate but qualified peers have dared to pick them up on what is clearly not scientific method.

Even more dirt

As this is still the tip of the iceberg as thousands are waiting in the wings, how much of their own private conversations do people need to see before it's obvious to everyone not related to them they are cooking the books?

eg:

Trenberth see’s Ben Santer’s paper published in Science as having “substantial problems”, due to spurious artifacts introduced by radiosonde equipment changes over time making the ERA-15 data “corrupted” in Trenberth’s words. Two words sum the problem up: temporal inhomogeneity.

Therefore one of the top men in the business, Kevin Trenberth, has seen a huge error reach the world's science community and kept it to himself. That's mafia tactics, not scientific method.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Aug 24 2012 09:53 PM

As expected the new material is flooding out now, and latest emails reveal pretty much explanations both how the hockey stick was made (pretty much the sole reason CO2 rises were associated with its rise in temperature many others hadn't found for the same period) and better still open admissions they had found many areas open to simple alterations. Phil Jones, who just claimed in an interview (on the BBC of course) that as 90% of scientists have agreed in man made warming there should be no more opposition allowed in the media, was actually the one who revealed it was made using “value added homogenized data.”

How and why anyone can still try and defend the hockey stick, and as a result the whole man made theory based almost totally upon it is a mystery except for my knowledge of psychology telling me fear beats intellect and peer pressure makes most people follow the pack and ostracise outsiders until they are found to be correct when the tide turns and goes the other way.

These growing revelations must make neutral readers at least somewhat concerned that it is not possible to have so many instances of bad practice clearly exposed without devaluing the whole area. And if not, then what will it take for people to realise something's not right before they question the status quo (and each day is costing us more in higher taxes, solely on the basis that cheap fuel is bad for the planet, my bottom).

This is how they did it, including some direct confessions

Someone has gone to the trouble to work out what it looked like before adjustment, quite fascinating. Seems our current record temperatures are gone, and when it was known by everyone except Michael Mann and his vast band of followers it was hotter in the 1400s (plenty of documented and physical evidence worldwide, people wrote then as well) it was both very good for the planet, and not man made. If this graph is accurate (and I suspect it is) we have had the mother of all cons imposed on us for the last 30 years and nearly everyone still believes it. Maybe if more people checked the stories they read in the papers as I chose to out of personal interest they wouldn't have let it continue unabated.

Really?

Surely not?

Yes, really!

How do they get so many different results but only use one officially? How would you like your accountant to do that?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Aug 30 2012 04:44 PM

There is an absolutely fixed formula for commonly held beliefs. First a few intuitive people start to notice there may be other explanations, then they are ridiculed, insulted and possibly even prosecuted or killed. Then new evidence appears gradually showing what they claimed was actually the case well in advance, until there is enough evidence for the weight to become overwhelming, a belief becomes converted to a known, and then people tend to forget it was ever any other way, from the sun revolving round the earth to stomach ulcers being caused by stress.

So after over a decade of small isolated voices reading the graphs (far easier than equations) and noticing CO2 always rose some time after the temperature as it was released by the ocean gradually, not before. A new paper now has tracked the cycle from the ocean to the atmosphere, meaning the heat is being created in the exact opposite way as claimed before, and impossible to be from the small amounts we emit here as all been shown to be natural. Of course in climatology every new study has an old one which disagrees, another reason I simply don't believe it's safe to be relied on to make world policies, and until the equipment and methods are good enough to overall agree nothing should be relied upon to that level:

The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.

The combined efforts of three Norwegian universities

I will add we only produce around 3% of CO2, which always concerned me how that could then be blamed on us. That's common sense to me but not many people seem to share this with me.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Sep 11 2012 06:24 PM

I think this is a first. Having posted the study showing the US temperature estimates had been around double the actual figures once the adjustments had been painstakingly removed and found to be consistently high (while supposed to be filtering out the heating effects of urban heat islands), the NOAA, the US official meterological institution, has done their own measurements using 114 brand new rural stations which are all identical so there's no need to adjust anything but take their direct readings. They can now confirm the outside critique was correct, as the previous readings were reduced by 2.1F

Not only was this found to be the case once adjustments and local variations had been eliminated at source rather than post-processed, but conceded this probably applies worldwide seeing as the surface measurements are all done the same way.

Somehow the recent warming appears to have vanished, the 2.1F reduction means there has been pretty much none at all. I wonder how the press will justify not reporting this seeing as it is the most official data they will ever receive?

Independent measurements confirm heat bias
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Sep 16 2012 03:01 PM

They're still at it

US temperatures, before and after

The US not only has the most weather stations in the world, but if these methods represent standard practise, I can reliably say 'There is no global warming', and if not can still for the US which covers many more readings than elsewhere. This is not standard scientific routine, quite the opposite.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Sep 20 2012 04:30 PM

I've seen various references to how the hockey stick diagram was built, making sure what started as flat temperatures over the recent centuries sloped up at the top, and now have a complete summary. When we are accused of cherry picking, in fact the only reason this argument exists is Michael Mann selected about 5% of Siberian tree ring sets which showed what he was looking for, and cobbled them into the data so they skewed the results in the way he needed. It goes on to explain how the enquiries didn't even have much of the data available, and stacked the juries with interested parties not normally permitted under British law (or any other).

Here's the complete picture, bearing in mind spaces had been completed by the methods discussed in their hacked emails, which under a police examination would have been part of the forensic enquiry, and always required as part of the greater public interest if being used for making public policy as this has been.

----------------------------------------
The hockey stick graph at the center of this dispute was based heavily upon data taken from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Created by Mann and his colleagues, it supposedly proved that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years until the 20th century, and then suddenly rocketed off the charts (attributing this to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions). That image was featured to support urgency of a cap on carbon dioxide through the Kyoto Protocol which was being pushed at the time by Al Gore and the United Nations. It prominently and repeatedly appeared in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

But there were some problems with that graph and the research behind it. Some very big problems. One was that the Medieval Warm Period which occurred between about AD 800 and 1100 along with the Little Ice Age (not a true Ice Age) which occurred between about AD 1350-1850 somehow turned up missing. And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages.

QED

Here it is

The funny thing is the majority of rebuttals I have when I post these articles is about the publication and author of them rather than the material itself. That is telling in itself. I have never actually heard of Forbes besides in the lyrics of a recent record so have no idea or interest in who they are, who funds them and who reads them. Only the two paragraphs I have added matter as they are independent of any messenger.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Sep 24 2012 04:36 PM

I recently read a magazine who claimed the temperature rise from 1850 was 1.4C, double the accepted amount. I didn't bother to try and follow it up as all it did was demonstrate how utterly simple it is to basically provide your personal figures with no or little question. But I was curious to know where the figure was possibly obtained in error, and discovered why the IPCC estimates for temperatures in 2100 were so high yet the 2010 figures were way below expected in 1990. They doubled the sensitivity equation in 1990, kept the graph based on it, and means the actual temperatures are double what they should be, which would peak around 3C and trough near zero. The mid point which is by far the likeliest as the wider the error bar the less likely the result would then be around 1.5C rise at current CO2 increases around 5-600ppm, which are within the area where the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages. That was from their own report which the reporters clearly haven't read as besides the obvious benefits of more food and fewer deaths from cold (more people always die of cold than heat within normal ranges) extreme weather events can never be attributed to global warming as the connection can't be judged well enough.

The certainty the politicians and media provide is not official. They all unanimously quote IPCC reports as no one else is authorised to provide official data. There is plenty more, most of which claims their connection between CO2 and a rising temperature is not proven or important, but they are not part of what the IPCC is using, so go largely unnoticed outside the skeptical community online, although by independent and equally qualified and equipped scientists. None of the adjustments discovered previously have ever been challenged at an official level, just dismissed as the actions of an anti-science hit squad, despite being found by professional statisticians. In fact there is no official channel to question the data, if someone important enough takes the material to the source the best they get is an internal enquiry, the one on the hacked emails didn't even present the papers in question so there was actually no enquiry at all since the doctored material hadn't been taken to it.

This does not happen in many other areas of science, and if such uncertainty was present in accounts people would be prosecuted, and architecture people would risk dying in dangerous buildings. These errors are far greater than any either made in business or engineering, since the tolerances required for building houses or bridges are so small anything outside would probably wreck the careers of anyone caught doing so, but when it's just weather reports it seems the boundaries are far wider and more liberal.

Even I can understand these sums!
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Sep 26 2012 09:31 PM

It is utterly pointless if you are going to try and alter data to get the results you want as it is still impossible to remove every trace of the same data before you did so. So yet again, a pre-Hansen/Mann graph appears showing before he made the hockey stick the temperature had actually dropped between 1940 and 1970.

Whatever has happened since they made the graph in the early 90s, unlike the sets above where they took flat raw data and made them erect (the temperature Viagra effect) this has gone a step further, equalled only by the IPCC's removal of the similar graph in 1995 where they happily displayed the widely accepted medieval warm period, by actually having to ignore (and hope no one noticed it) the actual data know for the period already. This beats anything they've been found to do by a country mile.

Get out of this one?

On the general point, when you do not just get caught making dubious adjustments (eg raising temperatures when allowing for urban heat islands) but rewriting existing accepted climate history, how can anyone retain confidence in anything else they say? The reason I say this is very simple. A PhD statistician can easily explain their way out of adjustments with terms you and I have never heard of and would need an equal level of study to understand. But simply using a different set of temperatures for a period already written is something a five year old could understand and question. From a constitutional point of view it means when such items are exposed and nothing happens that he must be working for those who would otherwise enforce the rules. If not then why does it conclude with a handful of interested parties discussing it on the internet while James Hansen continues to run the US climate research at its head. Surely if it is questionable at the very highest level it must reflect everywhere lower down?

This is definitely not a scientific point or question but a simple logical one everyone is able to see. Can anyone think of a single explanation for this and the loss of the MWP in the identical way by his own employers? As above, so below. As commented at the end of the piece:

"The real crime here is the silence from so many others in the “climate science community”"
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Oct 05 2012 09:48 PM

Very odd, first the medieval warm period vanishes, and now despite removing it, the very same diagram has surfaced and while it still shows the hockey stick and shrunken MWP, it also goes back 10,000 years and reveals a climatic optimum where the temperature 4-8000 years ago was actually about 0.5C above the present. No floods, disasters or other events expected by Al Gore materialised, history confirms business as usual with wine grapes in Britain and healthy crops across the temperate zones.

If history shows thousands of years of living with higher temperatures then what is the need to work out what it might be like, and why do they keep saying it's never been as warm as it is now, just because their usual diagram stops in year 0 and has flattened out the middle and raised the end (as the IPCC changed their original diagram in 1991 replacing it with one which had been photoshopped) they just use the useful bit but the rest of it which has been conveniently discarded remains for all to see here:

Full timeframe

So why do the IPCC say 'hottest year ever' whenever the current short sample period peaks, and show concern about even the (unknown) melting ice etc from even today's levels? I say unknown as world ice is stubbornly refusing to reduce despite the incredibly well publicised recent Arctic melt, probably known about in the rain forests of Central America and furthest flung Pacific islands, yet the fact the same event was evenly balanced by a record high Antarctic ice level is no doubt news to every single person reading it here. That's called spin to you and me.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Oct 10 2012 11:49 AM

Wow, anti-science? Me?

"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"

Margaret Mead 1974

1974 conference report
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Oct 11 2012 11:17 AM

It's a busy week for sure!

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present the evidence to you from 2010 and 2012. When the temperature rises what does ice do? Even as a lawyer I would say I and you as well are qualified to know it melts. As they said in 2010:

"The latest evidence is from the US Geological Survey, which said its research is the first to document that every ice front in the southern part of the Antarctic Peninsula has been retreating from 1947 to 2009, with the most dramatic changes occurring since 1990."

Antarctic ice is melting

Yet two years later the Antarctic ice (over 90% of total) is at record levels, and the same people (as they mainly work together and share their material and send it to the UN), and this was their response to the photo of, well, an ice cap:

"The ice goes on seemingly forever in a white pancake-flat landscape, stretching so far it just set a record. And yet in this confounding region of the world, that spreading ice may be a cock-eyed signal of man-made climate change, scientists say."

Changed the rules

----------------
See the trick? When the ice was melting (we have been warming up for hundreds of years, long before fossil fuels were burnt in volume) it was 'man made' when they wanted it to be, but after over 10 years of flat temperatures and the ice dares to stop melting and begins to freeze again, the explanation is identical then unless there has been a vast breakthrough in climate science in the intervening two years it appears that the conclusion has actually been decided before and regardless of the events. Can there be any other possibility?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Oct 15 2012 10:18 AM

A week after being released on the internet, the Daily Mail was the first (and only?) paper to release the official temperature record showing a 16 year wavy line starting and finishing in exactly the same place. Many people knew about it online of course but we are a small bunch and not enough to make a difference. But the biggest event of all was Phil Jones, one of the heads of the department who issued them, who openly admitted they do not know the influences of oceanic and solar cycles.

I and many more have been claiming this for years, he has now admitted it (along with the implication the models are trashed, as it was about 0.5C below the lowest estimate) so why is it even an issue as any warming we did have (in 20 year cycles on average with cooling between them) is at least as likely to have been natural anyway regardless of how it was presented.

How does such an admission go over the heads of apparently all politicians, who are the only ones empowered to inflict policies on us even when their main contributor has just admitted they are based on virtually no understanding at all. You don't get that in any other profession.

article

If this is what it took to get them to admit their genuine failings then the temperature itself was secondary as it cast doubt on all their other claims totally- Dr Jones was not speaking for himself, the quote was

"Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun."

Would you continue to accept anything else they have said after that, and if so why?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Oct 27 2012 06:41 PM

I feel like a storyteller here. Once upon a time a bunch of scientists got together, and between them made a potion of figures and measurements which when put together made a hockey stick. The trouble was when anyone tried to use it it changed shape and wouldn't work, but no one else could replace it and everyone was forced to try and use it even though it never seemed to be stable enough to work.

Many years later, although one of his tricks was required to create it, by casting a spell over hundreds of tree rings to make all but a few disappear and use them to both raise the tip of the hockey stick, and then vanish in a tangle of lines when it started heading the wrong way, Keith Briffa saw the angry clouds of fate heading his way, threatening to rain on his chips and make his hockey stick so soggy it could melt away. To quickly get out of the path he and two colleagues went back to the spell and took out all the funny incantations, such as 'abracadabra and alakazam, make these rings for Michael Mann' or 'by the powers of Greyskull make these threes into sevens' and the like, leaving only the boring stuff like 'one and one is two, two and two is four' etc, which is deadly dull but impossible to question.

And then they concluded the trick was only an illusion and should not be relied on. He is probably going to be awarded a halo for this redeeming action, and had they not been part of the same illusion a Nobel Prize. I may even send him a Christmas card myself now.

Changed their minds, changed the climate

Here be the summary:

We describe the analysis of existing and new maximum-latewood-density (MXD) and tree-ring width (TRW) data from the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden and the construction of 1500 year chronologies. Some previous work found that MXD and TRW chronologies from Torneträsk were inconsistent over the most recent 200 years, even though they both reflect predominantly summer temperature influences on tree growth. We show that this was partly a result of systematic bias in MXD data measurements and partly a result of inhomogeneous sample selection from living trees (modern sample bias). We use refinements of the simple Regional Curve Standardisation (RCS) method of chronology construction to identify and mitigate these biases. The new MXD and TRW chronologies now present a largely consistent picture of long-timescale changes in past summer temperature in this region over their full length, indicating similar levels of summer warmth in the medieval period (MWP, c. CE 900–1100) and the latter half of the 20th century. Future work involving the updating of MXD chronologies using differently sourced measurements may require similar analysis and appropriate adjustment to that described here to make the data suitable for the production of un-biased RCS chronologies. The use of ‘growth-rate’ based multiple RCS curves is recommended to identify and mitigate the problem of ‘modern sample bias’.


Michael Mann, the official owner of the hockey stick, has yet to answer the revised decision, although it is only but hours old. My bet is he isn't going to though, and for the double no one's going to ask him. Not even Keith, he's already off the hook.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Nov 07 2012 06:03 PM

The frightening almost religious trust I've raised in scientists here is not just about abdicating our own judgement to others, but utterly unfounded.

Oddly enough the slight rise in sea level rate has coincided with the introduction of satellite measurements, on top of temperature rises when most land stations were removed and replaced in 1979. Cause or effect one may wonder. The latest analysis from NASA has discovered the entire satellite data since the beginning of taking sea level measurements may well have been measuring the wrong points, causing a potential doubling in figures. This means (and corresponds with the negligible rise in temperature) the rise has not increased in rate but is steady at well under 8 inches a century, no more than the 1900s.

Besides the implications for all the predictions in sea level rises made in the last 30 years which have unanimously been hundreds of times higher than present, on the large picture then how can we trust any of their old data when they keep discovering the old methods were inadequate? Can you imagine your annual taxes being messed around with like that? Except they are, as ours include a large portion of climate tax, which wouldn't exist had they not overestimated a growing number of figures way above the likely reality. Once these corrections are made the new sea level graphs are going to drop. How will the politicians react to that once it's clear they aren't doing anything new for hundreds of years after all? (nothing)

Error after error after error etc
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Nov 20 2012 01:04 PM

The significance of climate stories is only as good as the people reading them, and the media have clearly dismissed many as it doesn't fit with their agenda. Therefore earlier this year yet another long term study of proxy data (tree rings in this case) for the last 2000 years claims the past temperature estimates were far too low and we are indeed in a cooling trend, at least in Europe. Regardless of the rest of the world there is so much uncertainty in the area governments have no place making policies on it while it is.

Tree rings show Europe is cooling

Meanwhile, after five years, it turns out that another major temperature diagram had to be adjusted after errors were found, again showing the 1930s were the warmest overall, but for reasons unknown to me they are still using the old diagrams today despite everyone knowing they were way out. That is sheer negligence, or worse.

"1998 was not even the hottest year of the last century. This is because many temperatures from recent decades that appeared to show substantial warming have been revised downwards."

Errors corrected

So again, errors have been picked up which shift the entire foundations of the argument, which is bad enough, but again, they are still using the old diagrams today.

Can you see a pattern forming?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Dec 02 2012 06:07 PM

Generally it's best to take the evidence here as a whole, but every now and then a leading diagram tends to overshadow all the lesser data, and here is one of the best I've come across. Solar cycles/temperature. The fit is incredible. Unlike the one with CO2.

Far more pressing is why aren't the world aware of it, this was found 11 years ago?

Yes, it's really the sun.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Dec 06 2012 12:31 PM

After a summer of absolute media overload, the Grace satellite has just refined its findings and found the loss of Arctic ice to be many times less than previously thought, as the spurious data was so great it took them this long to filter it out. The loss is now within the error margin, ie negligible. Which is logical going by the lack of warming for over 15 years now.

New science

" While overall ice loss on Greenland consistently increased between 2003 and 2010, Harig and Simons found that it was in fact very patchy from region to region.

In addition, the enhanced detail of where and how much ice melted allowed the researchers to estimate that the annual acceleration in ice loss is much lower than previous research has suggested, roughly increasing by 8 billion tons every year. Previous estimates were as high as 30 billion tons more per year.

The rate of loss of ice from Greenland is estimated at 199.72 plus-or-minus 6.28 gigatonnes per year. So the possible acceleration of losses is only barely larger than the margin of error in the readings: it's very difficult to tell the supposed loss curve from a straight line."

I'm sure both the IPCC and media will take this on board and change their approaches accordingly </sarc>
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Dec 13 2012 11:12 AM

The 1998 el nino temperature peak is very familiar to any climate investigators, and recently (as it takes a while for the new material to filter through) it has been overtaken by the one in 2010. I was surprised as these have only recently begun arriving, but only in half the diagrams.

There are two world temperature measurements, the absolute (around 14C) and relative (anomaly). Both are the same. You have some sites displaying both with the peak at 2010, while an equal number is still in 1998.

Imagine a hospital measuring the temperatures of the patients, and having two different diagrams. Which one would be the right one for the doctor to treat? I don't know the answer, any more than I do for the world's temperature.

I've gone to the trouble of saving it here, I could do with another final long term temperature diagram to complete the set but so far none go beyond 2010, but the short term ones all do so quite clear regardless.

Here it is.

I will add in my conclusions having read a partial explanation since posting it. The general reason was the data had been reassessed and added new Arctic measurements taken since the 1998 peak which shoved the angle downwards. That as may be, but what does that tell you on the meaning of this alteration? The only available conclusion is they had been using incorrect data for some years and treated it as correct. This is not an isolated example, I have pages of them saved, and many posted here. Extend the scenario to other professions. A team of engineers are building a massive bridge across a river taking traffic and trains, and depending how they did it the measurements for weight tolerances and the like varied greatly. Would you even walk across it, let alone drive, if you'd seen the data they used before they built it?

Until the climate, which other field could use such widely differing figures, which then were 'revised' from time to time, one by one dismissing the medieval warm period (it's still in every book written before it was removed), 1938 and then 1998 as the peaks, and if a shop gives you the wrong change by accident the error will tend to zero over time, but every single alteration I have has been upwards. That means every error and new finding meant their figures were reading too high then, including believe it or not the adjustment for urban heat islands where most current weather stations are located.

If you (like quite a number here have been or are) were doing a science degree, and offered three different sets of data depending what you used to measure them you know what would happen. If you were qualified and produced similar variations in the lab you also know exactly what would happen. If you did it in a lab and also advised governments to collect money on the basis of it you only need to look at Enron and will see what happened to them for doing what is today called 'carbon trading' and is compulsory in the EU and Australia. You don't need a science degree, a degree, or a single exam pass to get this (just like jury members who decide if someone loses their liberty), just eyes and ears and a mind to process what they see and hear. How can a single field function using such blatantly inadequate and worse material, and both collect the praise of most of the world and be relied on to make world policy via the UN?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Dec 19 2012 12:51 PM

One thing about writing things down with dates means is I can refer to claims I made earlier and then refer to new results which suprise surprise appear to confirm they were accurate.

Oddly despite the complexity of the underlying equations, like the machine code used for websites we all use happily, the final results are primary school level. CO2 rose 50% from 260-400ppm, and the temperature (minus natural causes) rose 0.8C.

Therefore with no unknown new influences we have observed the increase of half a doubling to imply a doubling will be no more than 1.6C (minus natural causes).

And now the IPCC drafts seem to have worked it out as well.

IPCC reviewer explains the figures

Of course it's a year before the actual final effort by then which is likely to have been altered the same way the temperature figures were to make them rise in the 80s (see recent post), but it won't change the existing relationship and look less and less credible if they do try and introduce an unsupported mystery cause of a greater rise for the remaining 50%, especially since their end point is 2100 which none of us can be alive to know either way.

Have the facts finally overtaken the politics?
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Dec 27 2012 01:17 PM

In a twist to the debate over global warming, melting Arctic sea ice is making it easier to transport the fossil fuels that produce the planet-warming gases, which appear to be causing it to thaw in the first place.

Arctic sea ice melted to a record low in September, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, when ice covered just 24 percent of the Arctic Ocean, compared with at least twice that amount three decades ago.

The link includes an image of the newly opened Northern Sea Route.

The author of the article has been promoted to the Washington, D.C. bureau, but is from Alaska.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/12/26/2734944/economic-wave-may-course-through.html#storylink=cpy
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Dec 27 2012 10:37 PM

National Snow and Ice Data Center. Another conspiratorial science organisation eh Satguru. Did a scientist steal your lunch money or what?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Dec 27 2012 10:51 PM

Yes, they did actually, our fuel and energy are among the most expensive in the world due to said scientists, as they quite openly and happily drive government policy.

The Arctic melts however are thoroughly misleading, one, because they are cyclic and have shipping records going back hundreds of years showing they do it every few decades and then freeze again as long as records are kept, and secondly like temperatures the full records only go back to 1979 when there were satellites to view it all from above.

This is the clearest diagram I can find covering that era. But it doesn't make good news material so you won't see that sort of thing blasted around the papers. Had they shown you this instead (the recent melt will not make much of a dent come the spring when the winter freeze is added) I don't think it would have caught your attention.

Satellite ice 1979-2010

Full history

It's essential to know these basics before trying to use local and short term incidents to try and claim something unusual is happening. Especially as in order to melt (not locally but worldwide, which it isn't) it needs to be driven by temperature, which has not done so for at least 15 years. How can the ice melt if the average temperature hasn't risen sufficiently for it to do so?

20th century history

Long term history

"Numerous sites have been surveyed along the length of the Northwest Passage. The eastern and western approaches have become reliably ice-free in summer under historical climatic conditions, whereas in the central part summer sea ice has been persistent. The radiocarbon-dated bowhead whale remains indicate that the whales were able to range along the length of the Passage during two intervals (centered on 9000 years ago and 1000 years ago) and that they were able to access the central part from the east about 4000 years ago. During the first of these intervals (9000 before present) ice cores indicate that summer temperatures were about 3°C warmer than mid 20th Century. Therefore, a warming of 3°C exceeds the opening threshold. Medieval Warm Period temperatures were probably about 1°C warmer than mid-20th Century, which is likely close to threshold conditions for an opening of the passage."
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Dec 29 2012 01:37 AM

How can the ice melt if the average temperature hasn't risen sufficiently for it to do so?

That's a really good question. The Arctic sea ice has melted, according to your information, more than it had for 4000 years.

(The eastern and western approaches have become reliably ice-free in summer under historical climatic conditions, whereas in the central part summer sea ice has been persistent. The radiocarbon-dated bowhead whale remains indicate that the whales were able to range along the length of the Passage during two intervals (centered on 9000 years ago and 1000 years ago) and that they were able to access the central part from the east about 4000 years ago.)
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Dec 29 2012 10:12 AM

The 1930s had a greater passage free though so can't quite work that out, and it showed 1C higher in the 1500s. I do wonder how much interpretation is subjective if not trained (on both sides, including me, I am not a scientist), but the point stands that even 4000 years ago man was spread worldwide, it was around 3C higher, there was very little Arctic ice, and people continued their lives as always. So regardless of the historic details which are patchy at best, the one thing history does tell us is mankind didn't appear to suffer any bad effects 3C above today's average temperature. I'd say that was pretty good news.

The Arctic ice issue is tremendously complex- the biggest clue being that it's completely different from the Antarctic as nearly all sea ice. Half of the melts are not due to temperature but weather conditions, mainly wind. The storms break up the ice and warm water rises to the top causing melting of the remainder. This detailed analysis covers the 20th century onwards and shows the measurements were so patchy before satellites you can only use local direct reports reliably as there was no universal direct figure, and extrapolate from them.

Arctic ice reports

"Arctic Ice Changes in past 3 years due to 'shifting winds' - 2009 - Oceanographer and Arctic researcher Jane Eert said “dramatic [Arctic ice] changes in the past three years are the result of shifting winds.” “Enormous amounts of ice have 'been exported from the Arctic,' driven by winds that are shifting,”

A series of similar studies follows all saying it was mainly from the wind, not the temperature, which is entirely logical following the lack of any increase in temperature.
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Dec 29 2012 01:55 PM

I am also an amateur.

Your life would be vastly different if the temperature rises another 2 degrees; you would have to relocate, and that would be far more complicated than picking up your spear, rolling up your tent and finding a happier hunting ground.

The average temperatures during the last glacial maximum 18,000 years ago were only 5 degrees C. cooler than now, according to a textbook I'm studying. (See Q #12 on this quiz.)

All the major coastal cities would flood. We would have a building boom farther inland if we were able to build new port cities to receive raw materials.

See this article by the BBC.

Also, the graphs in this one, which demonstrates a common fallacy of skeptics: looking at too short a record. Ironically, the top photo does exactly the same thing, showing glacial retreat since 1992 without acknowledging the Athabasca Glacier has been in retreat for 125 years.

Here's the best available Arctic temperature data, and the best Arctic sea ice data.

How much human actions influence all this is very much open to debate, but the facts of higher temperatures and less sea ice are clear.
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Dec 29 2012 02:20 PM

Hi, Satguru,

Hoping not to sound (or be!) pedantic, I'm going to make a recommendation. You seem to be sincerely interested in this subject, but mostly quote from skeptic sites. I suggest studying the most neutral sources possible. My rule of thumb is that if the person's career depends on proving or disproving AWG, he will not be as reliable as someone who is just after the facts. While I recognize the ideal of dispassionate research is never fully achieved since all researchers are human, those who are attempting to prove a point rather than investigate the facts have a huge bias.

In a brief correspondence with Michael E. Mann (a few short emails) it was obvious he is willing to exaggerate some claims. But Anthony Watts is hardly unbiased, either, and he has a position to defend.

I find the "conversion" story of Richard Muller quite convincing. Here it is in the BBC.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Dec 29 2012 06:36 PM

I read the lot actually, and like a jury member have seen the holes in the case for the prosecution. Of course the defendant (you and me here) is innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution are not allowed to play the same tricks as the defence as one penalises an innocent person while the other may just get them off either way.

To qualify my point, I was fascinated by the original stories in the 90s, and just thought it was a scientific curiosity with no special significance, but interested enough to follow. A few years later the original numbers I'd seen had shrunk, I thought at that point that normally when a scare story peters out the press move on to something else, but they didn't. Come the internet as well as a few newspapers and other sources I started checking up the claims on the large and small scale and found the same sort of problems you find when interviewing an unreliable witness. Changes in evidence, contradictions, all the things which alert the judge to a possible dismissal (I'm the son of a judge so only too familiar). Using scientific principles, you can't have a case which can't be proved, repeated or observed. The warming Mann is speaking of as well as the entire UN is in 2050-2100. That is not observable. It can never be and no experiment should even be attempted without a conclusion.

I won't list the individual data here (I have a site for that which is now up to the draft material on my summary) and most is on this thread already, but a slightly warmer (as in today) climate is within parameters we always experience, the only weird thing is the high CO2. Take that away and look again. The temperature has risen slightly over around a 30 year period up to around 2000 which is also related to a 60 year cycle where you have a regular 30 years warming and cooling. At least we don't have to wait till we're 90 plus to see this likely cooling phase complete in around 20 years, but it's a third completed already and fits past graphs.

As for the evidence you speak of I have sorted it into three main categories to be simple.

1) Induction- local and short term phenomena like the Arctic melt, glacier melts, hot summers, extreme weather events etc, which alone indicate nothing, as we are told when we dare to mention freezing winters which are quite rightly called weather.

2) Errors and adjustments- I am collecting these religiously, many posted here, and examples such as the 30 billion tons of ice coming off the Himalayan glaciers every year, which turned out to be made up, is only one of many like it but easily the worst. Then the pre and post adjustments. Ramping up recent temperatures or dropping the old ones to make the current look high are the usual, and then going back and 'fixing' ones they'd used for years when they found ways to fill the gaps in the old ones. Where else in science does that happen?

3) Predictions- climate models are the lion's share of the climate studies, most set 20-100 years ahead, meaning people will forget them a month, year or decade ahead and will only occasionally be called to task when one is so widely used the present can be held against it and seen to be wrong. Like the UN predictions made in the 90s for 2010. Anyone with a BSc can make them, and no one with any qualification on earth can get them right, the further ahead outside a linear system the wider the error compared to the range. Where the error margin (it widens like a funnel) becomes wider than the range then they are meant to stop at or before that point, but they keep on.

Shaky foundations form no buildings. Everything else they claim based on this trio of inadequacy collapses as it is raised. The very fact the temperatures haven't risen steadily as all models claimed is a poor start. The sea level can't swing wildly like temperature unless we're leaving an ice age, and that is almost linear again with a reasonably likely range of a few inches this century already, exactly the same as the last one. Unfortunately it's impossible to keep trying to find material to support a theory when everything before it has failed to reach the mark.

The only issue everyone agrees is in question is whether doubling CO2 (we're half way there) will add more than the lab measurement of 1C or something will make it rise more by releasing major amounts of water vapour. Unlike the 2050 onward predictions we have a result already, the temperature rise for a 50% rise is 0.8-0.4C (actual less natural), meaning even if it was all from CO2 which no one is claiming, it couldn't surpass far beyond 1C, and 2C is the UN's figure where the benefits (it lists the same ones as I always did, like increased food production and fewer deaths) may be outweighed by the problems (despite it being 3C higher 4000 years ago, and around 1C in 1500). The UN IPCC had that figure on their graph and it vanished around 2000, which doesn't make it go away, it just either means they don't want it, or they were so wrong for decades of measurements none are reliable enough to use ever again. How can we have confidence in that?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Jan 01 2013 09:50 PM

Although this diagram was published over a year ago no one knows about it. A few more will now.

Temperature vs CO2 from 1960, red line (temperature) is followed by the black line (CO2), around 6 months after it changes. The claim from numerous scientists that CO2 rises after temperature, meaning the slight variations warm the sea which gives off more CO2, is both logical and observable, and corroborated by the equally unknown Ibuki satellite which found the least populated areas gave off CO2 and vice versa. All this points to the current rise in CO2 being entirely natural, as if not then it would rise and then the temperature would, and the satellite findings would not have shown nearly all highly populated areas absorbing CO2 overall.

Put these together and I can't see how the rest stands up. Neither are fabricated, adjusted or otherwise unreliable, and why haven't the scientists included these findings into the latest announcements? I have had a sneak preview of the latest IPCC report, and can say the draft does appear to defuse pretty much everything from the previous four, and even if altered for the final work the draft has been saved by many people and will need even more explaining if the original statements differ greatly as they can't both be right.

CO2 follows temperature

I have just found another diagram which shows the Arctic temperature following the geomagnetic field (no, I have no idea what it is), but would explain the recent decline in ice, plus only half of sea ice loss is from temperature while the rest is weather related, mainly wind. It's from the cdiac, the US CO2 monitors so definitely genuine, just found the study here.

Original research here
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jan 03 2013 08:17 PM

I would say this new study, collecting more datasets than any before, has to be the best news for everyone concerned about global warming on both sides, as it appears to have found it has gone, and probably wasn't ever there at all.

“…We show that although these anthropogenic forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols, solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated. This implies that recent global warming is not statistically significantly related to anthropogenic forcing. On the other hand, we find that greenhouse gas forcing might have had a temporary effect on global temperature.”

“…our rejection of AGW is not absolute; it might be a false positive, and we cannot rule out the possibility that recent global warming has an anthropogenic footprint. However, this possibility is very small, and is not statistically significant at conventional levels.”

How many of these actually need to be done before people take any notice of them?

No significant man made warming found

M. Beenstock1, Y. Reingewertz1, and N. Paldor2
1Department of Economics, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus Campus, Jerusalem, Israel
2Fredy and Nadine Institute of Earth Sciences, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Edmond J. Safra campus, Givat Ram, Jerusalem, Israel
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jan 06 2013 08:36 PM

Here are excerpts from a report you'll like:

The overwhelming majority of Alaska is getting colder and has been since 2000, according to a study by researchers with the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. But the authors stop short of saying the lower temperatures contradict that idea that the earth, and Alaska in particular, is warming. Instead, they conclude that the findings show a temporary variation.

The report, produced by a team headed by professor emeritus of geophysics Gerd Wendler, is titled "The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska." It was published in The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012.

The authors looked into sunspot activity and determined that it was not related to the trend. They did find a correlation with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, a shift in warm waters from the eastern to the western side of the Pacific Ocean not unlike the El Nino warming pattern. But while El Nino shifts over months, the PDO moves much more slowly, staying put for years or decades.

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/01/05/2743379/study-shows-alaska-got-colder.html#storylink=cpy


At the same time, CNN explains why Shell can drill in Alaskan waters--far less sea ice:

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates more than 90 billion barrels of oil and nearly 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may be recoverable by drilling in the North Slope. And the shrinking of the region's sea ice -- which hit record lows in 2012 -- has created new opportunities for energy exploration in the region.

Climate researchers say that a decrease in sea ice is a symptom of a warming climate, caused largely by the combustion of carbon-rich fossil fuels. The science is politically controversial but generally accepted as fact by most scientists.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/05/us/alaska-drilling-rig/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jan 07 2013 05:54 PM

It is indeed such a mixed picture people are able to take almost the same material and present it in opposing ways. So far the general requirements of science, observable, repeatable and predictable are yet to be fulfilled, and with the entire complexity of the climate adding a small amount of CO2 to the existing part will probably never be quantifiable, with so many known and unknown drivers of all its aspects.

However, manipulating the new data before and after it arrives does not help their cause one bit, that is illegal outside science and would have expected it to be inside as well although at present a retraction is the worst they can expect (which I've detailed elsewhere).

But back to Alaska, it is a micro representation of the big picture, and deciding how and where it fits in is a fool's errand, as the theories one puts forward are contradicted by another, and pretty much the same whichever events they pick. I keep saying if a doctor or investor had such a wide margin of uncertainty you'd stop using them, so why should the climate be any different just because the losses from errors aren't directly apparent in deaths or financial losses? But I'm very pleased to see something which is showing both sides as very few people on either side acknowledge there is a second at all, which again is far from scientific.
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Jan 08 2013 06:15 PM

It's a big world. Alaskan land has gotten significantly cooler in the past decade, but its waters have warmed significantly. Meanwhile, on average, the USA has gotten hotter: "2012 is officially in the books as the hottest year on record for the continental United States." http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/08/us/extreme-weather/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

"The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for November 2012 was 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average of 12.9°C (60.4°F). This is the fifth warmest November since records began in 1880. Including this November, the 10 warmest Novembers have occurred in the past 12 years." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/

You can google the months ("global temperature average 2012") and find August, 2012, was the 4th warmest August since 1880, May was the second warmest May, etc.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Jan 08 2013 07:43 PM

I can only observe the material produced as not a scientist, and does look like you may appear to be actively looking for trouble with this latest set. Short term records are firstly not enough to form a trend, and secondly the record is since when exactly? Since we started measuring, since satellite usage, since proxy records began?

This is not science, but media speak. I've waded through over a decade of these shrill headlines, and when you fit them into the total they seem to vanish in the noise of the wider variability. What about the amount of change? If two million people have cancer in an area and a million more have it the next year, that's a heck of a lot of people, and a 50% increase. If one person has a particular form of cancer in an area and the next year two does, that's a 100% increase.

Those are media tricks, and not science. These quotes are meaningless without the sort of context I have mentioned, and for every single one someone can provide I can do exactly the same with the opposites. Neither will be any more meaningful than the other, and if possible means such quotes are not part of any evidential value. Even the IPCC have set the lion's share of global warming in the period 2050-2100, long after most of us will have left the planet and totally unobservable as a result. Even they are not certain of the degree or existence of man made warming, let alone the temperature next year. So unless we have a pretty sharp rise or fall in the next decade or two nothing we have yet indicates a lot as whatever has been claimed is virtually all potential, these are just the foreshocks which require vast amounts of inference to assign any significance to at all, and with a growing period of flat temperatures the likelihood of any significant rise by 2050 or 2100 becomes less and less, and diverges more and more from the models.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jan 09 2013 05:35 PM

NASA have just announced a new set of reports which demonstrate a large correlation between solar variation and climate/temperature

NASA report

This is not a single study, but a complete collaboration required by experts in all areas, as it was acknowledged how hard it was for any single discipline to have enough knowledge alone to contribute enough. As such this is the most comprehensive of all studies into solar activity and NASA have now been compelled to accept the sun does indeed drive the climate in a major way after all.

"One of the participants, Greg Kopp of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, pointed out that while the variations in luminosity over the 11-year solar cycle amount to only a tenth of a percent of the sun's total output, such a small fraction is still important. "Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined," he says.

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere."


And like buses I just came across a report showing how CO2 levels in the IPCC literature appear to have been basically made up by ignoring everything over 300 (and boy, were there a lot!). I'll dig a little more but this graph alone pretty well kills off the entire debate if correct as it was close to double the official pre-industrial levels during those levels. I always wondered why my 1961 book (when we were still expecting an ice age) had CO2 at 200-400ppm, which the maximum is still below today's 390ppm.

Selective measurements influence world policy

The entire report
Posted by: queproblema

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jan 13 2013 05:23 PM

I'm in Anchorage right now, where all three of my adult children live.

Last year was one of the coldest Januaries on record, and broke all records for snowfall. (If I remember, the records go back to 1888. Could disremember.) http://www.adn.com/2012/01/27/2287406/anchorage-on-track-to-set-record.html

This year is unseasonably warm and with very little snowfall. Yesterday it was 39 degrees F. and raining! Whoever heard of a flood watch in the middle of January? http://paom.arh.noaa.gov/zonefcst.php?zone=101

I'm just reporting these pertinent facts on wild weather swing. I know I can't see the whole global picture from here. Heck, I can't even see Russia from my back porch! smile
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jan 13 2013 06:07 PM

All reports are welcomed, and you being in Alaska particularly relevant. And also appear to show what our winters do in England, no two are the same, except the ones that are. That's been the same in living memory and two of the coldest were in the last few years.

Meanwhile a study on top of the thorough assessment by Hebrew University has also discovered:

"Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. Changes in atmospheric CO2 are NOT tracking changes in human emissions"

Global and Planetary Change
Volume 100, January 2013, Pages 51–69

Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl, Jan-Erik Solheim

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

Summary here

I think the rest is a pay service but by some fairly eminent scientists for those who are familiar.
Posted by: Trigger7

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Jan 13 2013 06:49 PM

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/report-global-warming-changing-daily-life-in-u-s-1.111469
Please read the above article which has some up to date pertinent information compiled by app. 200 Scientests
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jan 14 2013 08:24 AM

The start of the article "Global warming is already changing America from sea to rising sea and is affecting how Americans live, a massive new federally commissioned report says."

pretty well almost killed it for me from the start, and had to accept it was the poor journalism rather than anything in the study which related to the rising sea, which is rising at a rate of around 7 inches a century as it did the last one. That over, the next hurdle was the same as always, 'in the future'. We only get the future a long time after the present, stating the obvious but one these guys appear to have forgotten. In the early 90s the IPCC combined the best available models and made a graph of potential future temperatures by 2010 with different emissions, come 2010 and we were below the lowest one. And no apologies were made.

"and climate change is more than hotter temperatures, the report said."

Really? Climate change from global warming is about more than higher temperatures which drive, er, climate change? Poor grammar at best, misleading at worst.

"The report uses the word "threat" or variations of it 198 times and versions of the word "disrupt" another 120 times."

Doesn't mean a single one will happen.

"Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including impacts from increased extreme weather events,"

The current position is extreme weather events are not likely to increase in frequency but possibly in intensity.

"the report details 13 airports that have runways that could be inundated by rising sea level."

7 inches a century?

Before I read this I was expecting a bunch of decent data showing actual causes and effects which would have demonstrated if nothing else there was some uncertainty, with other 2013 reports already presented appearing to be finding things had settled down and may never have even been happening at all. The combination of the alarmist and careless reporting and the lack of physical data makes this a propaganda piece of the worst kind, and as such does exactly the opposite intended, if read by anyone not already convinced of the case.


Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jan 28 2013 11:01 AM

Al Gore and John Kerry have both said there are no peer reviewed studies disputing any aspect of man made warming. I have a list made of over 1,100 right here.

If you can't trust them on something as important as that, what else can you trust them on?

Where's the consensus?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jan 30 2013 07:49 PM

The great thing about sea ice is its short term nature. This means unlike the sea level or solid land based glaciers the swings are fast and wide. And due to the inherent balance throughout the climate system a fast melt is usually followed by a fast freeze, the latest figures show a record for 2013 already, which most neutral bystanders would say is very good news, much like the halt in temperature rise for the partisan (as I would prefer a rise, as history shows a higher temperature of a couple of degrees causes more food production and fewer deaths from cold). But if people think warmer is worse then both are good news, and certainly if taxes were connected to the temperature rise it would be good news for me as well as it hits me as hard as any.

Record Arctic freeze
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Feb 02 2013 02:10 PM

Possibly the best news for the world for decades. A new study from the Department of Geology, Western Washington University, has studied 650,000 year's worth of ice cores in more detail than before, and found huge rises in temperature throughout history, totally unrelated to CO2. According to the conclusion any rise in CO2 would be most likely from the rise in temperature releasing it from the ocean, but finds absolutely no connection between the short and minor current temperature rise and the clear rise in CO2.

This is science at the highest level and would need a great deal of errors to be proved wrong in the slightest.

Ice core analysis

In the past century, each of the two warm periods (1915–1945 and 1978–1998) and each of the two cool periods (1880–1915 and 1945–1977) resulted from cyclic changes of Pacific sea surface temperatures (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation). In 1999, the NE Pacific changed abruptly from its warm mode to its cool mode, bringing the 1978–1998 warming to a close. Projection of the pattern of cyclic warming and cooling over the past 500 years strongly suggests that the climate will continue to cool for the next several decades.

When I've been accused time and time again of being anti science here, my point is that science has to follow scientific method. Using only weak computer models to imitate a climate as complex as a human mind, and base it purely on assumptions how they think it ought to work, and then project it beyond our lifespans before anything happens is anti science. This study here is real science, I can see the difference at least.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Feb 16 2013 01:24 PM

I wonder how long it will take for the asteroids and meteoroids to be blamed on global warming? Meteorology is based on meteor showers, isn't it? Did you see the clouds of Carbon that one over Russia left in its wake? Does Russia have to pay the Carbon Tax on it, I wonder? It was reported to have broken up some of winter's ice cap (on a lake). The asteroid was here last year too. Isn't that a trend to add to the models?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Feb 16 2013 08:40 PM

I've read a few pieces already by scientists blaming it for all geological activity- earthquake/tsunamis and volcanic. I am hoping this diversion from what most people have learnt in school may start turning heads of those currently accepting their veracity and capability and realise they are losing it.

Meanwhile CNN have also blamed the meteorite on it so the blame is widening to infinite proportions. I suspect if the USA bomb out of the next World Cup finals a few scientists will say they couldn't train enough as the weather wasn't right. They seem to use every opportunity they can to do so and people just accept it and carry on, but they are going too far now for even the most trusting types.

CNN story
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sun Feb 17 2013 02:24 AM

All our storms are now termed "record setters" and then we come to find out it is the fifth lowest pressure or tenth deepest snowcover... I ask, "Where's the record?" Answer: "There isn't one!" It just makes for attractive segues and keeps the viewer tuned in to be told the news their hearing about has set a record of some sort.

Edit addition: Three months post event, the "SuperStorm Sandy", which did much damage to the NJ, NY and CT areas, has been downgraded to not having been even a Hurricane when it came ashore! We won't hear the news of that going on for weeks like we did when it was considered a Hurricane. Nor'easter Nemo was stated to be the worst of that type ever and now it's known that mid-century, fifty years ago, there were a series of Nor'easters that were more devastating and dumped in the range of 3-4 ft of the white stuff. Nemo mostly only dropped 2 ft. A record Nor'easter? Hardly.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Feb 18 2013 05:29 PM

Even I was caught by surprise by this one, but looking back logically it isn't surprising at all. Last century the sea level rose 1.7mm a year on average (7 inches a century) which is not enough to register on any level of significance. Then it's meant to have reached 3.1mm a year (still under a foot a century), but the satellites which generated this result have been questioned for being calibrated wrongly and reading the same amount too high. Now the NOAA, the US national organisation collecting the measurements directly through tide gauges have actually found the rise has fallen to 0.7mm a year since 2000, almost guaranteeing the satellites to be bogus as it's a darn sight easier to use a tide gauge and check it manually than go up and check every single satellite.

Tide gauge measurements

Now logically this makes perfect sense. We've had no warming in the 21st century, so as ice can't melt (50% of the cause) or sea expand without a rise, it's physically impossible for the sea levels to rise without a rise in temperature. In most organisations besides the mafia such inconsistencies would cause immediate suspensions of the satellite measurements until the problems were checked and sorted out, but even though they are partly shared by the same organisation, all they have done is make the sort of excuses for the difference a child would for losing their homework. Even the general public aren't that stupid had the papers taken the effort to let them know. A five times exaggeration of such vital measurements (Tuvalu has applied for billions of aid as they claim it's going underwater) is something unseen before in science outside the climate (glaciers would be gone by 2035, no sorry, that should have been 2350, and the Himalayan glaciers lost 40 billion tons of ice per year, oh no, sorry, they didn't lose any), but getting an entire sea level wrong for over a decade has easily outdone every single ricket since the hockey stick was invented.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Mar 06 2013 09:23 PM

Having by far the best resources in space I tend to hope people will trust the direct (as opposed to inferred) findings of NASA, and they have appeared to find the only cause of 'dangerous' warming (ie that which would amplify CO2) to not only be absent, but actually fallen dramatically. This is the upper atmosphere, where CO2 both fills in the spaces in the air which would otherwise let the heat through, and the major (almost total) cause of amplification, the water evaporating from the oceans, would have to lodge to cause it.

It is the upper atmosphere which is meant to act as the main barrier to outgoing heat, and the area the CO2, water vapour and heat would all end up, doubling or way more the 1C from doubling CO2, albeit beyond our capacity to ever know. These satellites began in 1979 with basic temperature measurements, and have slowly been increased to measure many other parameters, and this is nowhere near the first to totally contradict their models. Secondly the greatest unknown was the negative feedback from oceanic evaporation, the effect on cloud cover. Total cloud cover (ie water vapour in the lower atmosphere) is a cooling effect as it creates shade, and blocks the incoming heat by reflecting it back to space. There is no current knowledge on the amount of increased evaporation can have on cloud cover simply as that is admitted to be beyond even their best algorithms, and can only observe to draw any conclusions, which technically ought to apply across the climate board.

Now NASA's direct observations have shown the official line, that CO2 and water vapour collect in the upper atmosphere, greatly increasing the weak power of CO2 alone, to be redundant. I said long ago the small rise in temperature after a 50% increase was more than enough to see the absence of feedback, simply because it was expected to be steady and besides a small potential for retention of heat in the oceans (which can also be measured and is not there either) the vapour has to evaporate and stay in the upper atmosphere to have any effect whatsoever, and has now been shown not to. And with no feedback there is no global warming, yes, it's really that simple. CO2 would need to be over 1000ppm just to reach 2C, where the benefits of warming (all in the IPCC report, not my own imagination) are balanced by possible problems. It would then need 2000ppm to reach 3C which isn't even possible and would take a thousand years even if it was.

Read it here

It gets pretty technical after that but doesn't affect the bottom line and for anyone qualified is fairly conclusive that's what needs to happen and if it isn't then it probably never can.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Tue Mar 12 2013 02:26 PM

Here's a little calm in a sea of chaos

Correlation between natural cycles and temperature

Looking at not the first similar diagram, any warming can be seen to be clearly consistent with a far longer and fully natural trend for over 200 years.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Mar 16 2013 05:45 PM

Modern technology now means unlike verbal or written communication, electronic means leave traces all over the system and can be retrieved by equipped individuals just like fingerprints at a crime scene. Now there's absolutely no need to accuse anyone of cheating and not be believed if they are happy to admit it among themselves thinking no one else will ever see it.

But we have now:

Phil Jones and Michael Mann compete for the gold medal in cheating.
---------------------------------

date: Tue Aug 31 11:17:33 2004
from: Phil Jones
subject: Fwd: On the Role of Statistics in Climate Research, Tim Lambert, Phil Jones et al?
to: Rasmus Benestad
Rasmus and Mike,

In the email below, Mike seems to have won the gold medal for statistical abuse and I have the silver. I seemed to have tried too hard to explain my techniques. I tried really hard to get the gold medal – Mike has a degree in maths/stats ! I’ll have to redeem myself in AR4 and switch the places for the 2008 Olympiad – the AR4 coming out in 2007 should put me well in the lead.
I clearly didn’t allow for the knowledge of the judges – I think I’ll appeal!

Cheers
Phil

---------------------------------
Michael Mann created global warming personally by altering the 20th century temperatures to form a hockey stick although many others could not demonstrate them. Phil Jones runs the university department which provides the data to much of the UN, so besides these being the main players in climate science (sic) they were not actually joking as they weren't saying it to entertain the public.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Mar 18 2013 07:23 PM

News to me and presumably everyone else. The UN chose 1979 to start their Arctic ice coverage figures which turns out to have been an errant maximum. Last year's dip was exactly the same as it was in 1974, when everyone was still worried about global cooling. Context appears to be quite important even in science.

Arctic- panic over!
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Mar 27 2013 05:19 PM

In case anyone hadn't checked my training is in law and psychology, and as such have recognised over the years when it comes to facts people would normally rather accept the person than the material they present, meaning if someone has the correct authority status then most people switch off the critical button and accept them on trust.

Even though everyone makes mistakes, and the bigger the role the bigger the potential mistakes, the culture of trusting ones betters is inherent in society, so whatever the facts if a peer says the identical thing to a professor then the professor will always win, even if you disagreed beforehand, while the peer will only be agreed with if you agree already, or dismissed as unqualified.

I fight this prejudice every day in presenting not my data but those of professors, but simply by passing this data on secondhand loses almost all its value in the process. So today I just discovered this quote from the actual godfather of global warming, the man who singlehandedly addressed US congress in 1988 and was so well prepared he convinced president Clinton to pass the issue up to the UN and take the entire issue up as a global priority. Without Hansen global warming probably would never have been more than a trivial and obscure scientific observation with little funding to do no more than extrapolate from the sparse data available (measuring world levels of anything is almost impossible with any amount of resources, most fill in the gaps with equations).

It is now 25 years later, none of the expected warming took place, peaked in around 1998 and has now pretty well settled. It has been observed and backpedalled now by a number of top universities, and even Fritz Varenholt who was a lead author for the UN IPCC, who has been the first working non-independent expert to break from the pack and write an entire piece claiming the expectations from the 80s and 90s were now obsolete and no longer an issue. While not going that far, we now have the creator himself stating very directly:

A paper published today by James Hansen has some startling admissions, including:

the effect [forcing] of man-made greenhouse gas emissions has fallen below IPCC projections, despite an increase in man-made CO2 emissions exceeding IPCC projections

the growth rate of the greenhouse gas forcing has "remained below the peak values reached in the 1970s and early 1980s, has been relatively stable for about 20 years, and is falling below IPCC (2001) scenarios (figure 5)."

the airborne fraction of CO2 [the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase to fossil fuel CO2 emissions] has decreased over the past 50 years [figure 3], especially after the year 2000

Hansen believes the explanation for this conundrum is CO2 fertilization of the biosphere from "the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal."

"the surge of fossil fuel emissions, especially from coal burning, along with the increasing atmospheric CO2 level is 'fertilizing' the biosphere, and thus limiting the growth of atmospheric CO2."

"the rate of global warming seems to be less this decade than it has been during the prior quarter century"


Bearing in mind the 25 year tirade on the threats of future warming, this is a turnround of epic proportions. There is literally (if that is the criterion) no higher authority on the planet on global warming as James Hansen. He started this on his own, set the system in motion, and spent the next 25 years keeping it going. But you can't fly in the face of reality, and in 2013 there is a totally different reaction by the temperature to what they expected, and without his acknowledgment now he would clearly have started looking out of touch with reality and would not want to be the last man standing.

Here it is

Anyone closely familiar with the personnel involved will probably think this is a hoax. Remember April 1st (no, it's next week) last year, and previously, there were always the odd hoax headline about Hansen saying there was no more global warming and he apologised for all the unnecessary trouble he had caused around the world as a result. And then today it happened on one of the other 364 days, yes, it is real, and there is no person higher to say otherwise. He is the man standing at the peak of the pyramid alone, that is where the buck of global warming has stopped.

Edit, I am both truly amazed and impressed, this has actually just been reported by a major outlet, The Economist. That both allows many more people to know it and in a way endorses it as an important piece of news as till now only one paper I know of reported a single opposite scientific opinion from an actual official source.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Mar 27 2013 08:08 PM

Worth it's own entry. Check out this hockey stick. It follows the IPCC's one closely.

Graph here

Except it's the solar activity record (something the UN claim has barely any effect on the temperature).
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Mar 29 2013 05:25 PM

I don't think I saw this last year but even if I'd posted it then it's the first time a working IPCC member (as opposed to retirees or independent researchers) has turned his back on global warming. He has summarised the entire position in around a single page, and at that level of authority and knowledge would find it fairly hard to question as I'd been saying everything myself for years beforehand for one.

Fritz Vahrenholt, IPCC author

"Rather than being largely settled, there are more and more open climate questions which need to be addressed in an impartial and open-minded way."

That pretty well sums up his position, and explained covering every single aspect why. The governments and activists worldwide need to read this to make a genuine assessment of the position they will never see elsewhere unless from outside the existing climate community.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Apr 04 2013 11:41 AM

Ex-professor tells senators climate data manipulated

Professor Don Easterbrook

"A retired Western Washington University professor testified to a Republican-controlled state Senate committee Tuesday that climate change stopped in 1998 and that human-caused greenhouse gases are not responsible for fluctuations in the Earth's temperatures or melting polar ice caps."

I can't see this happening in Britain or many other countries.
Posted by: mehaul

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Apr 04 2013 04:07 PM

That was in front of Washington State's legislature not the Senate of the Congress of the USA. It was much like someone testifying to an English County Board meeting. Now that his message is known, it's doubtful he'll ever testify before any Committee in Washington D.C.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Fri Apr 05 2013 10:19 AM

Wonderful, of 50 states it had to happen in the only one possible to confuse with somewhere of vital importance. I stand corrected, but his testimony has not changed whoever he was telling it to.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Apr 20 2013 06:17 PM

NASA report

"For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

What?
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Apr 22 2013 07:08 PM

Copied over:


The Washington Post

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

________________________________

....... I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90 years ago.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat May 25 2013 08:19 AM

I have no truck with those whose main or only weapon to defend against climate sceptics is consensus, doctors were in consensus for centuries stomach ulcers were caused by excess acid (they weren't) and in the 70s we were heading for an ice age (clearly not). But the long lists of scientists I roll out every time to prove there is nothing of the sort always either is ignored altogether, gets wild accusations they work for big oil (no, they fund the winning side as you'd expect), or go to great efforts to personally attack the individual scientists themselves.

Now the German government have issued an official black list naming and shaming (in their eyes anyway) all the scientists who say man made global warming is probably not real. Do they realise they've just done something the press never have, and admitted officially there is indeed no consensus, as all these naughty experts disagree with it.

You couldn't make it up.

Germans name and shame but give credit to the opposition
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Mon Jun 10 2013 09:29 AM

As status carries the weight in this area, here is an interview with a Harvard astrophysicist who answers all the questions in ways everyone else not qualified would be vilified for. But if he's right then so are we, as it's all based on the same material, except he's qualified to interpret it directly.

Willie Soon interview
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Wed Jun 19 2013 09:30 AM

After some individual observations that individual high temperature years such as 1998, caused by the natural el nino, corresponded with years with higher annual rises of CO2, someone decided to plot them all. Every temperature peak is followed by a peak in CO2. It's funny how no one else appears to have noticed this very simple relationship but would be interested to hear anyone's explanations when they do see it.

Ole Humlum scores again

This has been explained by the Reading University's Bill Collins:

“There has been a big deal made of this being the second highest annual rise ever – but there is quite a lot of variability in CO2, due to plant ecosystems, so the last highest rise was after a very warm year.

“That was 1998 and not basically due to man-made causes but because it had been a hot year and the soils had given off a lot of CO2 and the plants had not grown strongly – so the year to year variability is often caused by the uptake of plants and trees."

It's quite hard to argue with that, and if it applies to 1998 and can be seen in all the other years, along with the given reasons, then why are we still being blamed for it?

Whole article
Posted by: mountaingoat

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jun 22 2013 10:46 AM

CFACT is the site you posted as your authority to slander the WWF. You are very big at rubbishing climate scientists for being corrupt because of where they get their funding. CFACT received $542,000 from Exxon Mobil from 1998 to 2006. It also received $3,195,500 from the Alleghany foundation which was founded by Oil Billionaire Richard Mellen Scaife. These are according to their own audits. According to your logic they are not to be trusted at all. Try applying some of your scepticism to your fellow travellers. It took me all of 5 minutes to undermine your latest rubbish so do save me some time and do some actual research.
Posted by: satguru

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Sat Jun 22 2013 10:56 AM

See my reply on the African land clearances. You didn't need to say the same thing on both, I don't need it in stereo.
Posted by: sue943

Re: Alaskan ice ignores global warming - Thu Jun 27 2013 06:51 AM

Enough.